Finish a leased distillation job by submitting a summary of what was added, or mark it failed so it is handed back and retried.
Finish a leased distillation job (or hand it back if it failed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| failed | No | True if the job couldn't be done; it will be retried | |
| summary | Yes | What was added, in a sentence or two | |
| queue_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| queue_id | Yes | ||
| remaining | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the job is leased and a failed completion returns it to the queue rather than terminating it. Missing are idempotency/retry-after-abandonment details, but the core failure semantics are disclosed.
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?
A single tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the alternative branch parenthetically appended. Nothing wasted.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the failure semantics are covered. The one gap is that queue_id's provenance (presumably from a prior lease/next_distillation call) is unexplained for a tool that cannot be invoked without 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 67% with 3 params; 'summary' and 'failed' are both documented in the schema and the description only restates the failed-path behavior. queue_id has no description anywhere and the description does not compensate by explaining where to obtain it.
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 (finish) and resource (a leased distillation job), plus the alternate branch for failure. It implicitly pairs with next_distillation but never names that sibling, so the agent must infer the job-acquisition counterpart.
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 phrase 'a leased distillation job' implies the prerequisite that a job was already leased, and 'or hand it back if it failed' gives a conditional path for the failed flag. However, no sibling is named (next_distillation is the obvious companion) and there is no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.