codemerge_finish

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does well: it discloses that the tool refuses if the session is not in the correct state, releases the lock, changes status to done on success, and keeps the session alive on failure. It also clarifies that success=false does not close the session, leaving no major behavioral surprises.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then the call precondition, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds essential information that is not available from the schema or annotations, and there is no filler.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers invocation context, state requirements, success/failure behavior, and the relationship to sibling tools. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully document both parameters. It does: session_id is identified as the merge session ID, and success gets detailed semantics including status transitions and session lifecycle effects. This far exceeds the sparse schema information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Finish a merge session and release the lock.' It clearly differentiates from related tools by explicitly referencing codemerge_merge() and codemerge_abandon, so an agent can distinguish when this tool is the right one.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call after codemerge_merge() returned proceed=true and only when the session is in 'merging' state. It also explains what to do when success=false and points to codemerge_abandon for closing a session, which is strong alternative routing.

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