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

The description discloses concrete side effects beyond the annotations: it inserts a completion record and a timer event. It also reveals the 403 refusal behavior for coordination-cycle tasks, which is valuable behavioral context not available from annotations or schema.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes useful information: action, side effects, usage context, and exclusions. It is dense but not bloated.

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, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what side effects it causes, and when it fails. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return value or post-completion state, but this is not critical for invocation.

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 all parameters. The description adds some context (such as 'on behalf of a worker' clarifying worker_id), but it does not meaningfully elaborate on response_value or notes, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: completing an ORDINARY task on behalf of a worker. It also distinguishes this from coordination-cycle tasks, which are explicitly excluded, and from subtask completion by using the phrase 'ORDINARY task' and the 403 refusal conditions.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('simulate or record task completions via the API') and when not to use it (coordination-cycle tasks, builds/reviews, decisions). It even names the alternative completion paths for excluded cases, making the routing decision explicit.

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