Finish Verified Continuity Session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that verification gating is required and that failure produces a continuation, which is a useful non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on successful finish (e.g., session invalidation, side effects) or the structure of the continuation, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a session-ending operation.

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, focused sentence that leads with the core action and adds a crucial behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too terse to provide a complete understanding of the tool's workflow, prerequisites, or return contract. It fails to explain how the parameters interact, what 'continuation' means practically, or what happens on success. This is a significant gap for a finish operation with multiple required inputs and conditional outcomes.

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 only 10% (only 'handle' has a description), so the description must compensate. It hints at 'verifier_operation_id' through 'SDK verifier gating' but does not explain 'close_operation_id', 'termination', 'recovery_mode', or the other six parameters. This minimal parameter guidance is insufficient for a 10-parameter API, especially with four required parameters.

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 that the tool finishes a session through SDK verifier gating, and explicitly notes that failed verification returns a continuation rather than a false completion. This distinguishes it from sibling session tools (begin, resume, turn, verify) by focusing on the finish action. The title reinforces the 'Verified Continuity Session' resource.

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 implies that this tool should be used when finishing a session after SDK verification and that a failed verification will not complete the session but return a continuation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative finish mechanisms, leaving some ambiguity about prerequisites or exclusions.

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