Finish walkthrough

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state without destroying it; the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavior (records end questions, returns a summary of remaining problems, then instructs the agent to surface the link), but says nothing about handle validity, repeat-call semantics, or failure modes despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the required post-call user communication. No padding, though the final sentence is an agent instruction rather than tool semantics.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is recorded, what is returned (summary with remaining problems), and what the agent must do next. Missing only error/repeat-invocation behavior, which is a minor gap against otherwise good annotation coverage.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the fallback rule for the `.questions` heading. The description's 'records the end questions' only echoes the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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 (close the walkthrough) and pins down lifecycle position with 'after its last slide', which separates it from start_walkthrough and add_slides. It also names what is recorded and returned. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements.

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?

'Close the walkthrough after its last slide' implies the correct moment to call it, and it prescribes follow-up behavior (tell the user it's finished, give the link). There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement about what happens if called early or more than once.

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