finish_attempt

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects beyond the word 'End'.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for an 18-parameter tool. It is easy to parse but sacrifices critical information.

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 tool with 18 parameters and low schema coverage, the description does not provide enough context about required inputs, state transitions, or side effects. It is not sufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 only 11%, leaving most parameters unexplained. The description mentions outcome, verification, artifacts, and status, but omits the required fields attempt_id, lease_token, and result_summary, leaving agents without enough semantics to construct valid calls.

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 the specific verb 'End' and names the resource 'leased attempt', making its function clear. It lists core data (outcome, verification, artifacts, status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like renew_attempt or save_attempt_note.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus renew_attempt or other attempt-management siblings. The context of ending a leased attempt is implied, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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