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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the sparse annotations: Corply verifies the task, the status becomes 'pending review', and only founder-assigned tasks are accepted. It also advises trusting actual_tool_output instead of adding a state-recovery call. The idempotency and confirmation-boundary boilerplate adds some context, though it is generic rather than tool-specific.

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 opening sentences are front-loaded and clear, but the final three sentences about canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation boundary are generic boilerplate that likely applies to many tools. The phrase 'plus every prerequisite stated above' is vague because no such prerequisites were actually listed. The description is longer than it needs to be.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it usefully explains the status transition, scope, prerequisites, and retry guidance. However, it omits stepKey semantics, what a successful or failed response looks like, and how to handle an already-reported or already-verified task. The vague prerequisite sentence weakens overall completeness.

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 only describes _corply_context; stepKey and note have no schema descriptions, and schema coverage is only 33%. The description clarifies that the note is optional and that the call reports a task as done, but it never explains that stepKey is the task identifier or where the caller should obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate enough.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('report as done'), a specific resource ('post-incorporation tasks'), and provides an example. It also scopes the tool to founder-assigned tasks, which helps distinguish it from sibling record/operating tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives clear context: use it for your own post-incorporation tasks, and 'only works for tasks assigned to the founder' acts as an exclusion. It also states the authenticated active organization prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings like record_existing_completion or transition_operating_work_item, so it stops short of a 5.

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