task_finalize

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

The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns only non-blocking hygiene and adversarial-verification advisories, never judges semantic correctness, and does not block completion. This is valuable and complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences pack the core action, preconditions, alternatives, force behavior, and return characteristics with no filler. Every sentence earns its place and critical information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return behavior (non-blocking advisories only). It covers preconditions, alternatives, force semantics, and limits of the tool. A minor gap is not explicitly stating irreversible/destructive finalization, though the annotation and 'Close' imply it.

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?

The schema already covers all four parameters at 100%, but the description adds practical insight by linking status to the verification precondition and clarifying that force is required for accepted finalization with remaining next actions. This goes beyond what the schema alone states.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Close the current Task Passport') and the resource being acted upon. It also distinguishes itself from task_park by explicitly naming it as the alternative for deferred work, making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable.

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 states explicit usage conditions: verification must already be passed, failed, or accepted, or status must be passed explicitly. It also directs the agent to task_park for deferred work and explains when force is required, eliminating ambiguity about when this tool should be used over siblings.

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