ddflow_job_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the refusal condition (running process), the cross-host safety rule with reasoning ('could not look is not not running'), and the exit-code defaulting behavior. It still omits idempotency/repeat-call behavior and any auth or side-effect notes, so it is strong but not 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?

Three dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the refusal constraint and the default behavior. Terse and largely waste-free, though slightly telegraphic in phrasing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: what it records, when it will be refused, and the cross-host force rule. It doesn't address return values or what state the job is left in afterward, a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already documents all five parameters well, hitting the baseline of 3. The description adds only the exit_code defaulting rule and an implicit reference to the note field via 'and how', providing marginal semantic value 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Record that a job ended and how,' which clearly distinguishes it from job_add, job_list and job_run. It stops short of naming how it differs from related lifecycle siblings like ddflow_complete or ddflow_abandon, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Provides one precondition ('Refused while the process is still running') and explains the force case for jobs on another host, which is genuinely useful routing context. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over ddflow_abandon, ddflow_complete, or other job-lifecycle siblings, leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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