chap.task.complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious state transitions: the output is held as the artefact under review, the task moves to review_requested, and a reviewer decision is what completes it. This is precise, actionable behavioral information rather than a vague 'submits output' statement.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the core action and then clarify the important review-related exception. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of schema information.

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 schema fully documents all six parameters and required fields, while the description covers the conditional completion behavior and review path. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly; the lack of an output schema is not a blocking gap because the description focuses on the state change, which is the key outcome.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning; all parameter semantics are carried by the rich input schema, which already explains output parsing, confidence formatting, and routing hints.

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 and resource: 'Submit a task's output.' It also clearly distinguishes the tool from the review/decision workflow by explaining that review-required tasks are not completed by this call, setting it apart from siblings like chap.task.create, chap.task.update, and chap.decide.approve/reject.

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 gives a clear conditional: tasks requiring review are held as the artefact under review, move to review_requested, and are only completed by a reviewer decision; any other task completes immediately. This strongly implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name the alternative decision tools such as chap.decide.approve or chap.decide.reject.

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