finalize_host_run

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

No annotations contradict the description. The word 'atomically publish' effectively implies all-or-nothing side effects (the mutation either fully succeeds or fails as a whole), and 'Validate' implies it checks preconditions. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only state it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description properly indicates this is a mutating operation.

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?

A single, dense sentence that captures both the validation step and the atomic publish action. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the validation requirement.

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 sits in a large lifecycle of siblings, and while it clearly names the finalization step, it's underspecified about preconditions (what constitutes 'all committed stages'), failure behavior (validation failure vs publish failure), and the expected_revision concurrency mechanism. With no parameter coverage in the description and no annotation detail, more behavioral context would help an agent know when and how to invoke this 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 carries no parameter explanation. However, with only 2 parameters (run_id, expected_revision) the field names are reasonably self-explanatory. The 'expected_revision' concept is a concurrency guard which could benefit from explanation, but the description does not add any semantic detail about either parameter meaning or format.

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 uses a specific verb 'Validate' and 'publish' with a clear resource ('all committed stages', 'the completed dossier'). It conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like commit_host_stage (staging) and start_host_run (initiation) by indicating it's the finalization step. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for contrast.

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 the tool is used at the end of the run lifecycle after stages are committed ('all committed stages'), which gives some contextual timing information. But it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, and doesn't mention prerequisites like all stages being committed or the run being in a valid state.

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