invariance_run_finish

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

The annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive intent; the description adds the specific mutation behavior: the run's status is set to 'completed'. It also clarifies the success condition, which is useful state-change context beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and outcome, then immediately provide usage and alternative routing. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter terminal action, the description covers purpose, success condition, and the failure alternative. It omits details like idempotency, invalid-ID behavior, or return value, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and clear state-change semantics.

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?

The input schema has one required 'id' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description never clarifies what 'id' refers to or what format/scope it expects, leaving the agent to infer that it is the run ID from the tool name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Close a run successfully') and states the exact outcome ('sets status to "completed"'). It also distinguishes itself from the failure-path sibling, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the agent finished its work without errors') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('use invariance_run_fail instead'). This is strong routing guidance that leaves no ambiguity.

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