Finalize a transaction by verifying anti-tamper fingerprints, archiving an immutable snapshot, and issuing commit clearance before Git commits.
Finalize transaction, verify anti-tamper fingerprints, archive immutable snapshot, and issue commit clearance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Completion note. | |
| evidence | No | List of evidence artifact file paths proving task completion. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral detail: anti-tamper fingerprint verification, immutable archival, and commit clearance are meaningful side effects. However, it does not state that finalization is irreversible, what happens if fingerprint verification fails, or what permissions/state are required, which are critical for a committing mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with four comma-separated clauses, each carrying new information about the finalization sequence. No filler or repetition.
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-required-parameter, no-output-schema commit tool with no annotations, the description covers what happens but omits irreversibility, failure behavior when fingerprints don't match, and what the caller receives back. Adequate but leaves important gaps for a terminal mutation.
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%, so the two optional parameters (note, evidence) are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how evidence is used in fingerprint verification or what a completion note affects.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Finalize transaction') and enumerates the resulting actions (fingerprint verification, immutable snapshot, commit clearance), which clearly positions it as the terminal step in the omnistate lifecycle. It is distinguishable from omnistate_abort/omnistate_step by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
'Finalize' and 'issue commit clearance' imply this is the closing step, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites (e.g., must follow omnistate_begin/step), no guidance on when to prefer omnistate_abort instead, and no failure-path guidance. Usage is inferable only from the word choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.