task_finalize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses prerequisites, the force condition for accepted finalization, and that it returns non-blocking hygiene advisories. However, it doesn't mention side effects like state changes or reversibility, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, no redundant information, purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place without being verbose.

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 4 parameters, no required, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains behavior, conditions, and return type (advisories). It doesn't cover post-closing state (e.g., whether tool can be reopened), but for a finalization tool this is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context for force (linking to remaining next actions) but largely restates schema info. Overall, minimal added semantic value beyond the schema.

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 current Task Passport.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like task_park for deferring work. No ambiguity.

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 explicitly states prerequisites (verification must be passed/failed/accepted), provides an alternative (task_park for deferred work), and explains when force is required. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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