finish_check

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-redundant behavioral context: the full inventory of eight checks with their semantics (loudness is 'report only', blackdetect runs are 'explained only when it falls inside the prepend or a hold's own span'), the window-stitch false-miss recovery behavior (`boundary_misses`, recovered), the aggregation into `faults`/`ok`, and the `finishlog` side effect enabling `proofcut review serve` WARN badges keyed to sha256. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence and nearly every sentence earns its place given the tool's eight-check complexity. However, the body is one dense ~170-word paragraph built from slash-chains and semicolons that is genuinely hard to scan; the eight checks could be enumerated or broken into digestible chunks. The information is justified, but the structure is not.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers the coordinate/time-base semantics, the default resolution of `prepend_seconds` and `holds`, the per-check behavior including what is report-only versus fatal-adjacent, recovery mechanics, and the logging/observability contract. The output schema covers return values and the 100%-coverage schema covers parameter mechanics; the only residual gap is that the density of the checks paragraph still demands careful reading, but nothing operationally necessary is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description clearly exceeds it: it explains the coordinate system binding `final`, `prepend_seconds`, and `holds` together ('every position this reports is in `final`'s own absolute seconds'), clarifies that `prepend_seconds`/`holds` default to stored project values with live offset resolution, and gives purpose to `recheck_pad` ('the pass that separates a real miss from a false one at a window stitch') and `windowed_model` ('runs over twice the audio'). This is genuine semantic value beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Check a delivered file against this project's timeline') and immediately differentiates from siblings: it is the `verify`/`check_frames`/`check_black`/`film_check` equivalent 'for a file an external mix pass produced, not one of proofcut's own renders.' An agent can unambiguously distinguish this from its four named sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 first sentence establishes the selecting condition — external mix pass deliverables versus proofcut's own renders — which implicitly routes proofcut renders to verify/check_frames/film_check. It also gives explicit guidance on when to override defaults: 'pass either explicitly (an empty `holds` list included) to check a file against a different set than what is currently stored.' It stops short of an explicit when-not statement naming the alternative for proofcut renders, so it is clear but not fully explicit.

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