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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It discloses the anti-self-approval rule, human-review routing, atomic lease release, that an invalid signature aborts with nothing written, and that the actor is never inferred from the assignee. These are exactly the transactional and authorization behaviors an agent needs before calling 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then layered by audience: authorization rules first, edge cases (422, signature abort) second, reference link last. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct behavioral constraint, so the length is largely earned rather than padding.

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 12-parameter, 3-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers authorization, failure modes, atomicity, and the prepare_completion handshake. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without inferring policy.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by tying parameters into workflow semantics: the lease holder wins over acting_worker_id, signature fields belong to a prepare_completion round-trip, and they must be passed together. It restates some schema text (outcome, acting_worker_id) but adds coordination context.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+deliverable: 'Mark a task complete with a structured receipt: summary, evidence artifact ids, open questions.' It also implicitly separates itself from siblings like accept_task/handoff_task by covering the terminal completion action and its authorization model.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the three valid attribution paths (active lease, acting_worker_id, human assignee/org owner), states what happens when none apply (422, nothing written), and names the prerequisite tool call (prepare_completion) for attested workers. There is no ambiguity about when this tool applies or how it will behave.

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