end_rehearsal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the draft is not modified and remains confirmable, but it omits other relevant traits such as idempotency, permissions, or what happens to the rehearsal session itself.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, that contain no filler. The key behavior follows immediately, making the description efficient and easy to scan.

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 output schema covers return values and the operation is simple, but the description omits parameter semantics and usage alternatives. With no annotations and zero schema description coverage, those gaps leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the sole required parameter 'call_id'. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema title, leaving the agent without guidance on what identifier to supply.

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 ('End a rehearsal'), which distinguishes it from confirming or drafting. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or clarify its relationship to rehearse_call/confirm_call, so it falls short of the top score.

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 implies a consequence ('draft stays unchanged and can still be confirmed') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer that confirm_call is the tool to use for confirming rather than ending.

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