Inspections Complete Inspection

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a write operation, describes the prerequisite status and sequencing, and mentions the return behavior ('Returns success or an error message'). This is comprehensive for a simple state-transition tool.

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 three sentences total, with the primary action first, followed by critical preconditions and return behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or padding.

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?

Given a single required parameter, a high-coverage schema, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential operational context: what it does, when to call it, what to do before it, and what to expect as a return. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the audit_id parameter is already described as 'The unique audit/inspection ID to complete.' The description does not add much beyond this, aside from reinforcing that the parameter is an inspection ID tied to the completion operation. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 action and resource: 'Mark a Mitti inspection as complete.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like inspections_list_inspections and request_approval by identifying the completion action and its write nature.

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 explicitly provides usage conditions: the inspection 'must be in in_progress status' and the tool should be called only after request_approval and waiting for the user's decision. This gives clear procedural guidance and prevents misuse.

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