complete_need

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key side effects: a completion Receipt is written, the workflow status becomes 'completed', and the row is not deleted. It also gives a validation constraint on evidence_links. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of covering reversibility or idempotency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, workflow guidance, and parameter format. Minor redundancy exists because 'comma-separated' appears twice and 'completed' is restated as status becoming 'completed', but every sentence still earns its place.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical call semantics, side effects, and a workflow ordering hint. It leaves out details like idempotency and failure behavior, but the output schema can carry return-value information.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by constraining evidence_links to comma-separated URLs or artifact paths the requester can inspect, reinforcing the field's format beyond the schema.

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 ('Mark'), a concrete resource ('a Need'), and the result ('completed') with an explicit side-effect caveat that the row is not deleted. This distinguishes complete_need from related mutating tools like claim_need and record_payment.

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?

'Prefer claim_need first' directly tells the agent the proper preceding step and implies this tool is for the final completion stage. It does not spell out when not to use it, which keeps it just 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.