personal_finalize_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavioral constraints: the precondition on linked records and the requirement to write a concrete reason, including citing the deduplication hit for zero additions. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or return/error behavior, so it remains incomplete for a finalizing mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences carry the action, prerequisites, conditional requirements, and the call-time rule with no filler. The most actionable instruction ('must call before answering') is placed at the end but all content earns its place.

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 3-parameter finalization tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the required inputs, the enum branches, the conditional reason, and the sequencing rule. It is missing post-condition/effect details and a definition of 'bidirectional link record', but the provided instructions are sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of disposition by tying derived to the bidirectional-link precondition and no-derivation-needed to a specific written reason, and it spells out what the reason must contain in the zero-add case. capture_id is only implied as 'current', which is the main gap.

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 names a specific action ('close'/'finalize') on a specific resource ('current raw-quote capture derivation loop'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like add_record or validate. It loses a point because 'current' and 'derived loop' rely on context and no explicit contrast with sibling tools is given.

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 states explicitly that the tool must be called before answering, and gives the precondition for derived (at least one bidirectional link) and the mandatory content for no-derivation-needed. It does not name alternative tools or when not to call, but the operational trigger is clear.

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