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

The annotations already signal that this is a non-readonly mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description goes beyond that by revealing a non-obvious behavioral consequence: 'Guest reputation remains non-durable until upgrade.' This is useful context not present in the schema or annotations. It does not enumerate every side effect, but it covers the most important caveat.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the reputation caveat is delivered in a compact additional sentence. It does not restate schema fields or annotation details.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations available, the description is largely complete for a simple task-completion tool. It adds the key non-schema context: guest reputation durability. The only notable gap is not explaining the relationship to the closely related nexus_complete_task, which is a minor omission given the rest of the structured context.

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?

All four parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat their semantics. The phrase 'claimed by the Guest Pass identity' hints at the relationship between guest_token and task_id, but the schema already documents these sufficiently. This matches the baseline score for a tool with complete schema 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Complete a task claimed by the Guest Pass identity.' This clearly scopes the action to the Guest Pass flow and distinguishes it from the sibling nexus_complete_task, even though that sibling is not named. The second sentence adds a relevant consequence without clouding the core purpose.

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 establishes a clear precondition—the task must be claimed by the Guest Pass identity—and the required guest_token parameter reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly tell an agent when to prefer this tool over nexus_complete_task, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative routes. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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