Report a work package as done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect—that completing all packages advances the project to the audit phase—which is not apparent from the schema. This adds important behavioral context beyond the simple 'mark complete' action, though it doesn't cover other traits like reversibility or error conditions.

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 exactly two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action ('Mark a work package complete'), and the second adds the critical phase-transition context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description covers the core purpose and the key consequence of the operation, which is useful. However, it omits any explanation of the parameters (especially projectId and packageId), does not describe what happens on success or failure, and lacks prerequisites or error handling. For a simple action tool, it's adequate but clearly has gaps.

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 only 33%, with only 'summary' having a description. The description repeats 'short summary' from the schema but adds no clarity for 'projectId' or 'packageId', which remain entirely undocumented. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain what these identifiers refer to or how they relate to the action.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Mark a work package complete' clearly states the action. It also differentiates from sibling tools like get_work_package (which retrieves) and run_audit (which executes audit), making the tool's purpose 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 provides clear context by stating 'When every package is done the project advances to the audit phase,' implying this tool is used to progress toward audit. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would earn a 5.

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