finish_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states that the operation mutates feature state to completed and updates Codex token usage, but it does not disclose reversibility, permission requirements, failure behavior, or other side effects. The word '최종' hints at finality but does not explain consequences.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses. The '[MCP Tool]' prefix is minor noise, but otherwise the structure is efficient.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete: it omits what the caller should expect after completion, whether the operation is reversible, and how to obtain or format feature_id. It works as a high-level summary but not as a complete invocation guide.

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% and feature_id has only a title, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter meaning. It does not explain feature_id's format, source, or valid values; the only implied meaning is that it identifies the in-progress feature being completed.

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 names a specific action ('진행 중인 기능을 완료(completed) 처리') and a concrete resource (features), and it adds the distinct side effect of finalizing Codex session token usage. This distinguishes it from start_feature and sync_codex_session, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of 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?

The phrase '진행 중인 기능' implies the trigger condition: use this when finishing an in-progress feature. However, there is no when-not-to-use, no prerequisite guidance, and no explicit comparison to siblings like start_feature or sync_codex_session.

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