executions_finish

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

The description discloses the side effects (sets state to DONE, records executedAt and executedBy) and error conditions (400 for invalid states). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is irreversible or if any other consequences occur, slightly reducing transparency.

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 concise with two sentences and a list of error conditions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently adds necessary constraints.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers core behavior and error cases adequately. It could mention the return value or confirmation, but overall is complete for its scope.

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?

The description does not explicitly describe the single parameter 'id' (e.g., that it is the execution ID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify the parameter's role beyond being required.

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 the action ('Finish an execution') and the resource ('execution'). It specifies the state transition to 'DONE' and recording of metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling execution tools like executions_pause or executions_run, which handle different state transitions.

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 explicitly lists conditions when the tool is allowed (current state IN_PROGRESS) and when it returns errors (WAITING, PAUSED, DONE, parent test cycle FINISHED, or verdict not set). This provides clear guidance on appropriate usage and when not to use it.

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