Cordon Finish

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

The description discloses significant side effects: flushing findings/assets to disk and sealing the audit log. This goes beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false) by specifying exactly what mutation occurs and implies the action is irreversible ('seal'). It does not mention potential state requirements or idempotency, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Close the engagement') and then details the consequences. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly 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?

While the description covers the main action and its side effects, it omits explanation of the 'outcome' parameter and does not explicitly warn about irreversibility or required preconditions. Since an output schema exists, return details are not needed, but the missing parameter guidance and lack of explicit 'final step' context leave the definition incomplete.

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?

The only parameter, 'outcome', has a default but no enum and is not mentioned in the description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent receives no guidance on what values are acceptable or what effect this parameter has. This is a clear gap that the description fails to fill.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Close the engagement' and lists specific actions (flush findings/assets to disk, seal audit log). This distinguishes it from siblings like cordon_status (status query) and cordon_load_scope (scope loading) by specifying a unique finalization action.

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 this is the final step of an engagement but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. For example, it does not warn that it should be called only after all work is complete or that it is irreversible, leaving usage context implicit.

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