local_gpu_finalize_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (publish) but gives no information about side effects, such as whether it overwrites an existing final PNG, whether the action is irreversible, or what happens to previous rounds. It also does not explain the confirmation parameter, which appears to be a safety mechanism. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, grammatically correct sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. It earns its place with no filler words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail, making it only slightly less than ideal in structure.

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 complexity (5 parameters, a nested object with enums, and a required confirmation string) and the presence of an output schema (which is not shown but implies return values), the description provides no context about the workflow step, prerequisites, or consequences. It does not explain what 'publish' does operationally, how confirmation is used, or what happens to previous rounds. This is a finalization action that would benefit from explicit state-change semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters (run_id, round_number, summary, confirmation, postprocess). The description only implies run_id (the run) and round_number (the reviewed round), but says nothing about summary, confirmation, or the postprocess object. This provides minimal value beyond the schema and leaves most parameters unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('selected reviewed round' as 'run's final PNG'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like local_gpu_record_review (which records the review) and local_gpu_generate_round (which generates a round). The purpose is unambiguous without needing the tool name.

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 phrase 'selected reviewed round' implies that it should be used after a round has been reviewed, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any preconditions. It does not mention that it is the final step in a run, nor does it exclude using it before review. This is merely implied context, not explicit guidance.

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