finalize_host_run

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

The description adds meaningful behavior: validation and atomic publication. Annotations are all false and provide little context, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or whether publication is irreversible, leaving gaps.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the main actions. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 finalization step in a complex lifecycle, the description is too terse. It omits prerequisites beyond committed stages, consequences of publishing (e.g., immutability), and error semantics. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 the description does not mention parameters. run_id is self-explanatory, but expected_revision's purpose is unclear (e.g., optimistic locking, expected state). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations.

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 clearly identifies the action ('validate' and 'atomically publish') and the resources ('all committed stages', 'completed dossier'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like commit_host_stage and export_completed_run by indicating it is the finalization step.

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 description implies usage after stages are committed ('Validate all committed stages'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would elevate it to a 5.

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