task_finalize

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds behavioral context: the requirement that verification already be passed/failed/accepted or set via status, the force requirement for accepted finalization, and the return of non-blocking hygiene advisories. This adds value without contradicting annotations.

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?

Four concise sentences, each delivering unique information: purpose, precondition, alternative tool, and return value. No redundancy or fluff; the description is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description properly discloses the return value (hygiene advisories) and covers preconditions, alternatives, and force behavior. It is complete for 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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to the status and force parameters. It explains that passing status explicitly can satisfy the verification precondition and that force is needed when next actions remain for accepted finalization, illuminating parameter interplay.

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 opens with 'Close the current Task Passport', which is a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from task_park for deferred work, making the purpose clear and differentiating from siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use task_park for deferred work instead of closing it' and clarifies the force condition for accepted finalization with remaining next actions. It also states the verification precondition, so the agent knows when invocation is valid.

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