ba_finalize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool only changes status, is idempotent (second call is no-op), never touches backing, and returns what was promoted. It lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or the output format, but covers core behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the action, second explains idempotency, third clarifies scope and output. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but missing parameter documentation and explicit output format. With no annotations, the description could be more complete about what 'returns what was promoted' means.

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 0% and the description does not mention the sole required parameter 'projectRoot'. The description fails to add any semantic meaning to this parameter, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 clearly states the verb (promote), resource (draft BA documents), and scope (all types listed: persona, fr, nfr, use-case, story, glossary, tech-surface). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by being the only batch finalization tool.

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 frames it as 'the clean here are your docs step' and explains idempotency and repeatability after change loops. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives among siblings.

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