office_finalize

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

Annotations already disclose destructive=true, non-idempotent, non-openWorld. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the no-overwrite guarantee on outputPath and the required validation gate (hash unchanged, full review). It does not say what happens on validation failure or whether publishing is reversible, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The first sentence is dense but every clause earns its place as a precondition.

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 4-required-parameter, nested-object finalize tool with no output schema, the description conveys the workflow gate but omits parameter guidance, failure behavior, and result semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 50% schema coverage and deeply nested contract/review objects, the description only loosely gestures at parameters (hash, review, criteria) and does not explain the path vs outputPath distinction or the contract structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it neither compensates for nor ignores the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Publish) and resource (a separate XLSX/DOCX/PPTX output), plus the precondition that makes it distinct from inspection/quality-check siblings. It does not explicitly name the sibling it follows (office_prepare_review, office_quality_check), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives a strong precondition: run only after recomputing machine checks and verifying a complete review of every unit and criterion against the unchanged hash. However, it never names the prerequisite tools or states when NOT to use it, leaving the workflow order to inference.

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