finish_working_on_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the state-changing effect, the all-or-selected behavior, and the no-argument default. It doesn't cover edge cases like repeated calls or what happens when no indicators exist, but for this simple lifecycle action the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The 'MUST call' instruction is first, followed by the behavioral summary and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity: no required parameters, no output schema, and both optional parameters are fully documented. The description explains when to call it, what it does, and how to choose between releasing all or a subset, so an agent has enough to invoke it 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds little beyond a slight rewording, and it refers to 'artboard IDs' where the schema says 'node IDs,' so it doesn't meaningfully improve parameter understanding.

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 states a specific action and resource: removing the working indicator from artboards/nodes being edited, which distinguishes it clearly from the many read/write siblings. The verb 'release' and the object 'working indicator' are concrete, and the scope is specified.

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?

It explicitly says 'MUST call this when done working,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also explains the choice between no arguments (release all) and specific IDs (release only some), which is exactly the decision guidance an agent needs.

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