Finish business execution

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which align with the description's 'End' and 'conclusion' – implying state modification is final. The description adds the key behavior of explicitly setting success or failure, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., irreversible state changes or downstream triggers). No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information. Every word contributes to the core purpose. No extraneous content.

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?

For a tool that terminates execution, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what happens after ending (e.g., flow cleanup, trigger events), how the result affects the system, or when to use optional parameters. Given output schema exists, return value details are not needed, but behavioral completeness is lacking for a destructive, terminating action.

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%, meaning the description carries the full burden for parameter explanation. However, the description provides no details about the parameters (result, reason, message) beyond what the schema already shows (enum, min/max length). The parameters are simple, but the description fails to add value, e.g., clarifying when to use reason vs message or how they affect the conclusion.

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 explicitly states 'End the current business action with an explicit success or failure conclusion,' which is a specific verb+resource phrase. The title 'Finish business execution' and the sibling tools (abort, pause, resume, rewind) provide clear differentiation, indicating this tool is for successful or failure-based termination.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to end an action with success or failure). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like flow.abort (likely for abnormal termination) and flow.pause/resume (for halting and continuing). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternative tool mentions.

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