End Detour

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that 'merge back' leaves the plan unchanged, 'return' appends tasks, and 'recalibrate' destructively drops all remaining Tasks. It omits whether ending is reversible, what happens to the Detour's own work under 'merge back', and any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the action, then gives one crisp clause per mode with zero filler. The terse phrasing (e.g., 'it was small and is done') is efficient but occasionally requires inference.

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 two-parameter control tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both parameters and their behavioral consequences well. It could state the post-ending effect on the Detour/plan state more fully, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining how `tasks` is interpreted per mode — appended on 'return', replacing the list on 'recalibrate' — which is meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Tasks to append (return) or the new Task list (recalibrate)'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('End the open Detour') and immediately disambiguates the three ending modes, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like start_detour or complete_task. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear conditions for each ending value: 'merge back' when the Detour was small and done, 'return' to resume the plan, 'recalibrate' to replace tasks. This effectively answers when to pick each mode, though it offers no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., what counts as an 'open' Detour).

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