forge_complete_phase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses side effects (closes current phase, advances to next, persists summary) and warns about required structured evidence. It could additionally explain reversibility or what happens to the current phase after closure, but it is already genuinely informative.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the evidence caveat logically follows immediately. Every clause earns its place, including the guardrail against closing uncompleted phases.

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 tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool does, what is persisted, when evidence is required, and how invalid evidence is surfaced. It does not describe the return value, but that is not critical for correct invocation here.

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 is 3. The description adds some framing—'summary is persisted' and 'evidence matching their contract'—but the input schema already provides detailed evidence shapes for gates, qa, design, plan, user confirmation, and optional phases. runId is left to the schema, which adequately covers it.

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 the verb/resource/effect: 'Closes the CURRENT phase with a summary...' and 'advances to the next one.' It also conveys the tool's core contract around persisted summaries and structured evidence. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like forge_next, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation benchmark.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not: 'Do not close a phase you have not actually done.' It also specifies when evidence is required (completionSchema phases, user-confirmation phases, optional phases) and points to the rejection message for invalid evidence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use forge_next instead', so it stops 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.