finish_external_design

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main actions (validate, accept, resume) and the state constraint, but does not explain side effects of accepting drafts (e.g., irreversibility) or failure behavior if validation fails. Adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the validity condition in the second provides essential context without padding.

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 pipeline tool with no output schema, it communicates the precondition, what it does, and the next step. It could mention failure semantics or side effects, but overall it is reasonably complete for a tool with full schema parameter coverage.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific actions (validates imports, optionally accepts drafts, resumes pipeline) and names the exact pipeline stage and condition. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like import_design_artifacts by describing a post-import continuation step.

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 a clear context ('only valid while paused at EXTERNAL_DESIGN') and implies it follows import_design_artifacts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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