complete_ai_task

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions trust derivation, duplicate rejection (idempotency), and signing, which are useful but insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, state changes, or what constitutes a valid input.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details. It is front-loaded with the main action but is not comprehensive.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain input/output contracts, parameter validation, or return format, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain nonce, inputTokens, outputTokens, durationSeconds, outputHash, or providerEvidence, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 completes a task and produces a signed receipt, distinguishing it from sibling tools that get or estimate. However, 'unique task' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what constitutes a task.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings are get/estimate, suggesting this is the completion step, but no explicit context like 'use after estimate_ai_reward' is given.

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