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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it discloses that nothing is sent to the customer and therefore no confirmation prompt is required, and it names the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). Annotations already cover the write/no-destroy profile, so this extra context is a genuine value-add rather than a repeat.

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?

Front-loads the core action and outcome, then adds the follow-up tool, the no-notification behavior, and the auth note in short clauses. Every sentence carries weight, though it is mildly repetitive ('Mark a job as completed' restated as 'Marks one job completed').

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 a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream dependency, side-effect scope, and auth. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether completion is reversible or what error conditions occur if the job is already completed.

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 job_id (from list_jobs) and notes ('What was done on site'). The description mentions optional notes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Mark a job as completed'), and clarifies the downstream purpose ('so it can be invoiced'). It also names the related sibling action (create_invoice), so an agent can distinguish this state-change from payment or invoicing tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it (job done on site, ready to be billed) and points to the follow-up tool create_invoice. It does not state explicit exclusions or prerequisites relative to siblings like schedule_job, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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