finalize_tuning_session

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

Annotation contradiction: the description says 'Finalize a tuning session,' implying a state-changing write operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to disclose any side effects, such as marking the session as complete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaningful content about the finalization process.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete due to the annotation contradiction and the lack of explanation for several parameters. The tool uses decision_id and idempotency_key, but the description does not clarify when they are required or how they affect the finalization.

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 only 43%, with 4 of 7 parameters lacking descriptions. The description hints at 'winning candidate' and 'stopping reason' but does not clarify decision_id, database_name, idempotency_key, or the meaning of 'complete leaderboard.' The idempotency_key parameter is never mentioned despite the idempotentHint annotation.

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 purpose with the specific verb 'Finalize' and identifies the resource as a tuning session. It lists key elements (winning candidate, leaderboard, rejected experiments, stopping reason), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_tuning_session or add_tuning_candidate.

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 implies this is the concluding step in a tuning workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, what prerequisites exist, or how to choose between this and related tools. There are no alternative suggestions or exclusions.

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