astrax_tarea_completar_paso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the permission-revocation side effect on the last step and the dual success/failure modes, but says nothing about auth requirements, reversibility, or what happens to step data after closure. Meaningful but incomplete disclosure.

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?

A single dense sentence plus two short clauses, front-loaded with the primary action and its branches. Every clause adds information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the side-effect disclosure is valuable. But for a state-mutating tool with no annotations and a required parameter left undocumented, the description should say more about `resumen` and the effect of closure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and partly does: it defines `exito` true/false semantics and explains `datos` as outputs passed to subsequent steps. However, `resumen`, the only required parameter, is never described, leaving a notable gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: closing the current task step, with the branch outcome (success/failure) made explicit. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like astrax_tarea_estado or astrax_tarea_crear, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 explains the two branches (exito=true closes and advances, exito=false logs a failure), which implies usage, but never states when to call this versus alternatives such as astrax_tarea_estado or astrax_tarea_guardar. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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