Mark an externally-run execution as ended

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects. It explains the tool is for unobserved external executions, but it does not state whether the operation is terminal, idempotent, or what error behavior occurs if called for an already-ended execution. Some background context is given, but key behavioral implications are missing.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and condition. No filler or redundancy; every word adds context.

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 description captures the core use case but omits return-value behavior, parameter semantics, and consequences. For a mutation/record tool with no annotations or output schema, this is insufficiently complete for reliable invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'outcome' in passing and fails to define executionId or notes, or enumerate outcome values. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter purposes and allowed values.

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 records the final outcome for externally-run executions, explicitly distinguishing from execution_run by referencing execution_create. This aligns with the title and makes the resource/action unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: for executions created via execution_create that log-probe-mcp could not observe exiting on its own, and explicitly excludes execution_run. This tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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