cpu_finalize_delivery

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: permissionless access, on-chain execution with gas costs, time-gating constraint, and the need for a session. This goes beyond basic shorthand and helps the agent reason about side effects and prerequisites.

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 compact and well-structured: what it does, key constraints, and prerequisite steps. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, eligibility, permissions, gas costs, and session setup. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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% and the parameter description already explains 'on-chain delivery ids' and reference to list_my_transports. The tool description reinforces this but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Finalize one or more arrived deliveries' and explains the effect 'crediting each to its target cell'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cpu_transport or cpu_claim_craft.

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 states the precondition that a delivery can only be finalized after arrival time and points to cpu_list_my_transports for identifying ready_to_finalize deliveries. It also notes the session requirement and mentions cpu_authenticate, providing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly exclude other tools but offers sufficient context.

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