flow-finish-recording

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses non-destructive behavior for other recordings ('leaving recordings under any other key untouched'), the return value structure, the failure condition, and that the YAML can be edited afterwards. It could have clarified whether the in-progress recording state is removed, but it says 'finalize' which implies completion.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return value, usage condition, failure case, and post-editing note. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant wording or filler.

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?

The tool is part of a recording workflow (siblings include flow-start-recording and flow-add-step). The description covers the finalization step well, including return fields, failure mode, and follow-up action. Without an output schema, it lists the return fields but doesn't explain each; however, the complexity is low enough that this is sufficient.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a bit by reiterating that the parameters must match those passed to flow-start-recording and that together they identify the recording. However, this largely echoes the schema, so the added value is marginal; baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Finish recording') with a specific resource ('flow named by `name` + `project_root`'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like flow-start-recording and flow-add-step by focusing on finalization, and notes it leaves other recordings untouched, making the scope explicit.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you have added all desired steps and want to finalize the flow file.' It also notes the failure condition ('Fails if that flow has no recording in progress') and post-usage option (edit YAML afterwards). No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the workflow context is clear.

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