finalize_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects ('Writes a confirmation block'), failure behavior ('rejection writes nothing at all'), and specific rejection conditions (missing/blank confirmation or invalid record). This is thorough behavioral 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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core action. It packs significant detail (confirmations, modes, side effects, return values) without excessive verbosity. Slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes value.

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 state-changing operation with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains success and error return shapes, prerequisites, and side effects. The only notable omission is the `directory` parameter, which is not explained, and there is no explicit mention of how the tool fits with sibling tools.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning for the key parameters: it explains `confirmations` (must contain created_by, maintained_by, model_access.mode) and `mode` (conversation vs elicitation, with elicitation ignoring confirmations). However, the `directory` parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap in the otherwise strong parameter explanation.

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 action: 'Mark the asset record complete, before the first push.' This is a specific verb+resource+timing that distinguishes it from siblings like read_record, get_record_schema, and record_facts, which are all read-only or schema-related.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('before the first push') and explains the two modes (conversation and elicitation). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the read-only siblings clearly do not perform finalization, making the usage context sufficiently clear.

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