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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether completion is reversible (a sibling redo_objective hints it might be), what happens when the final step is completed, whether permissions or job state are required, or how failures are surfaced — despite the notification_message parameter existing specifically for follow-up failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence of seven words with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the behavioral gaps scored elsewhere.

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 an un-annotated state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: side effects, end-of-list behavior, reversibility, and error/fallback semantics around notification_message. Only the core action is conveyed.

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%, with both parameters documented in-schema (captureJobId format, notification_message constraints), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline for full coverage.

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 concrete verb and resource: "Mark current step complete and advance." However, it never says which step system this belongs to (capture job checklist) and does not differentiate from siblings like approve_checklist, mark_objective_done, or jump_to_step, so an agent must infer scope from the captureJobId parameter.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as jump_to_step, select_capture_step, or approve_checklist, and no prerequisites stated. The word "advance" weakly implies the normal forward-progression path, but it is left to inference.

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