pcb_finalize_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the refusal condition and the summary contents. However, it references a non-existent 'force=true' parameter instead of the actual require_critical_verified boolean, and it does not state whether finalizing is destructive or affects the session state, reducing transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The only extra detail, the force reference, is inaccurate but not verbose, so the structure remains concise and scannable.

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?

The tool has a simple schema, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and side effects. It does describe the summary contents and the gating condition, but omits the actual parameter path to force finalization and whether calling this tool closes or modifies the session. This leaves the description slightly incomplete for a finalization action.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds no useful parameter semantics and introduces confusion by mentioning 'force=true', which is not a parameter in the schema; the actual bypass mechanism is require_critical_verified=false. This mismatch detracts from the description's value.

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 tool's role: 'Close out the multi-pass review' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by describing the refusal condition and the returned finalisation summary, making it distinct from sibling review, validation, and session-close tools.

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 gives clear context that this is the terminal step for a multi-pass review, implying use after review actions are complete. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the closing intent is clear enough for an agent to select it when finalizing a review.

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