run_finish

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It clearly discloses the destructive nature ('Wipe'), the scope (run-key namespaces), and the output (signed receipt). It does not explicitly warn of irreversibility or auth requirements, but for a zero-parameter tool this is substantive.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a necessary validity caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what will be destroyed, the scope, and what is returned. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has no properties, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The phrase 'this run key' provides implicit execution context without requiring parameters, which is consistent with a parameterless invocation.

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 states a specific destructive action ('Wipe all namespaces bound to this run key') and the expected return ('signed wipe receipt'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like kvp_delete, which targets a stored value rather than run-key namespaces.

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 constrains usage to run keys ('Only valid for run keys'), signaling it is not for other key types. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool performs a comparable namespace wipe, so the context is sufficient for selection.

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