acp_complete_job

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

The annotations already flag this as destructive/open-world, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by disclosing the internal behavior: auto-resolving a pending memo and signing approval. It stops short of mentioning irreversibility or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 that front-loads the purpose ('Complete a job'), then adds the key mechanism. No filler or redundant information; every part 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?

The tool is a destructive action with no output schema, and the description does not explain what the caller should expect on success or failure. It does not mention prerequisites like an active wallet or funded job. The annotations and parameter schema cover some context, but the lack of return-value or side-effect detail leaves a gap.

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 coverage is 100%, and all parameters have brief descriptions ('Job ID', 'Completion reason', 'Chain ID (defaults to runtime config)'). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 a specific action ('Complete a job') on a named resource ('Virtuals ACPRouter') and adds mechanism details ('auto-resolving the pending memo and signing approval'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acp_reject_job or acp_claim_refund.

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 implies the tool is for completing a job that has a pending memo to resolve, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like acp_reject_job or acp_get_job. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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