finalize_study

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: freezing implies an irreversible state transition, and 'one-shot' implies the held-out evaluation is consumed once. It does not cover idempotency, what happens on a second call, required permissions, or the failure mode when the nominee is incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary verb first and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed, since the same word budget could have disambiguated 'nominee' against the study/attempt parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated mutation tool with two fully undocumented required parameters, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently. Preconditions, failure behavior, and parameter meaning are all missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both study_id and attempt_id are undocumented in the schema, and the description does not explain their roles or the relationship between them. 'One completed nominee' implies attempt_id selects the nominee, but it never says so explicitly or clarifies what study_id adds.

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?

Names two specific actions (freeze a nominee, queue a held-out evaluation) on a specific resource, which distinguishes it from submit_study_candidate and cancel_study_final. The jargon 'nominee' is never tied to 'study' or 'attempt', so an agent must infer that these refer to the study/attempt identified by the parameters.

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?

Implies a precondition ('one completed nominee') and a one-time nature ('one-shot'), which hints at when this is appropriate, but it never states what to do if the attempt is not completed, nor does it name alternatives such as submit_study_candidate for submitting work versus finalizing it.

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