Finish and deliver evidence

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

Annotations say destructiveHint=true, and the description goes further by disclosing VM destruction, unregistration, and the delivery/verification workflow. It also clarifies important result semantics: a verified package is not a passing test, and a delivered package is not human approval, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main workflow, then covers result semantics, call timing, and failure behavior. Every sentence adds distinct operational value with no filler.

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 zero-parameter finalization tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what the result reports, when to call it, and what happens on failure. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is fully empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level ambiguity and needs no parameter documentation; its mention of 'every declared output' is behavioral context rather than a parameter definition.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Complete the task' by extracting declared outputs, delivering/verifying evidence, and destroying/unregistering the VM. This clearly separates it from most siblings, but it does not distinguish relay_finish from the closely related relay_release beyond saying 'Call this, or relay_release'.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: call before returning because ending the session does not finalize. It also names relay_release as an alternative and describes failure behavior (failed delivery keeps the VM), but it does not specify when to prefer this tool over relay_release.

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