Sign off a run

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the freezing side effect, the refusal policy, the force override, and the fact that exceptions persist on the record and print on the report—far beyond a terse 'Signs off a run'.

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 two sentences with the primary action front-loaded ('Sign off a completed run with a name and a date, which freezes it') and the crucial conditions packed into the second sentence. Every clause contributes useful information; no wasted words.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is largely complete: it explains the freezing side effect, refusal logic, force override, and exception persistence. The only notable gap is that it does not describe what happens to the run's status after a successful sign-off beyond 'freezes it', nor what the agent should do when a refusal occurs. Still, it's adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with every parameter already documented (by, run, date, note, force). The description adds only high-level references to signing with a name and date and the force flag, which does not materially exceed the schema's own semantic detail. 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 starts with a specific verb ('Sign off') on a specific resource ('a completed run') and states the effect ('freezes it'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like run_start, run_status, or run_report. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clear context: it is for completed runs and is refused while required steps are unanswered or failed, unless force is true. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other situations or advise when to avoid it, but the refusal conditions effectively communicate the expected usage context.

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