Finish work

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity and that the handoff outcome does not change lifecycle state, which is useful. However, it does not mention other behaviors like version staleness rejection, permission requirements, or idempotency—only the schema covers these.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and concisely lists the three outcome alternatives. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 19-parameter schema with full descriptions and no output schema, the description provides key behavioral context (recording evidence and state transitions). It is adequate for the tool's primary purpose, though it leaves the return value or side effects unexplained, which is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it ties outcomes to lifecycle changes, but that is already documented in the outcome property. No additional parameter context is offered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('record') and resource ('completion evidence') and enumerates the three possible task state outcomes. It clearly identifies the tool as the finalization step, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_work or transfer_work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools (e.g., update_work, transfer_work). The outcome choices are described, but the description lacks conditions or exclusions that would help an agent decide to pick this tool over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.