finish_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers the core behavioral traits: moving a file between lifecycle directories, absence of review, and no-op on v2 projects. It lacks details on authorization requirements or side effects, but given the absence of annotations, it provides sufficient transparency.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core action and then adding implementation and usage details. Every sentence adds value without any redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema (handling return values), no annotations, and two clearly documented parameters, the description adequately explains the tool's role in the v3 lifecycle. It could mention potential errors or return structure, but overall it is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the tool's lifecycle but does not provide additional semantic detail for the parameters beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: finishing an active task by transitioning it from active to done lifecycle state, with specific file movement details. It also distinguishes from siblings like approve_task by noting there is no review 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 explicitly says 'Use this for tasks that do not require ADMIN approval,' providing clear usage context. It also notes that on v2 projects it is a no-op, which helps guide correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like approve_task when approval is needed.

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