Complete or update the final status of a Hermes task run with final result, verification evidence, and blockers. Requires x-agent-key and task ownership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| blockers | No | ||
| task_run_id | Yes | ||
| final_result | No | ||
| verification | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses an authentication/ownership requirement and implies a mutation (complete/update). However, it does not discuss side effects, reversibility, or potential conflicts (e.g., if a task is already finalized), which leaves some transparency gaps for a write operation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a terse prerequisite. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 has 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core purpose and a few parameters, but does not cover status enum semantics, the structure of verification/blockers, or expected response/errors. It is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully complete for a tool with this complexity.
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. It explicitly names 'final result, verification evidence, and blockers' which maps to final_result, verification, and blockers parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the required task_run_id or the status enum values, leaving some parameter meaning implicit.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Complete or update the final status of a Hermes task run' with specific elements (final result, verification evidence, blockers). This distinguishes it from siblings like start_task_run which initiates a run, and query tools which read data.
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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool (when completing/updating a task run's final status) and notes a prerequisite ('Requires x-agent-key and task ownership'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to differentiate from starting or querying tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most task-run and record_* tools are clearly distinct, but query_lessons, query_lessons_full, and query_lessons_premium all describe nearly the same underlying lesson-query action separated mainly by access tier and payment. An agent can easily call the wrong one, especially because 'full' and 'premium' boundaries are unclear.
The tools consistently use snake_case verb_noun names such as start_task_run, complete_task_run, record_reflection, and submit_incident_report. The query_lessons variants use a predictable suffix pattern, and there is no mixing of naming conventions.
Ten tools is a reasonable footprint, but the three query_lessons variants are essentially reimplementations of the same query by payment/access tier. The count is not excessive, though it could be reduced without losing real capability.
The set covers task-run start/completion and lesson querying, but there is no way to read back task runs, reflections, subagent traces, or usage records after submitting them. This makes the task-run side feel mostly write-only and creates a notable gap in a memory-focused server.