finish_live_session

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses a SHA-256 binding and that only 'local bridge finalization' is reported, but it does not explain side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or the meaning of key behavioral terms. The schema detail about expected_sha256 is helpful but is not part of the description.

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 short sentence, making it very concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity sacrifices clarity, and important context is omitted, so it is not optimally effective despite being compact.

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 tool is part of a live session workflow with a conditional parameter and an output schema, yet the description does not explain what a live session is, how finish relates to begin/commit/rollback, or what 'local bridge finalization' means. The provided context is far too thin for the complexity involved.

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 mentions 'apply/cancel' which maps to the action enum, and 'SHA-256-bound' hints at expected_sha256, but it does not explain the conditional requirement for expected_sha256 or the distinction between apply and cancel. The schema itself contains more useful detail for expected_sha256 than the description.

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 states a specific action—'Request SHA-256-bound apply/cancel'—and mentions 'local bridge finalization', which gives some purpose beyond the name. However, it does not clearly explain that this tool finishes a live session by applying or canceling changes, and terms like 'local bridge finalization' are left undefined, making the overall purpose vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as commit_transaction, rollback_transaction, or abandon_live_session. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the usage context entirely unclear.

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