Complete Step

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

No annotations for readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'mark as completed' which implies a state change but does not mention reversibility, triggers, permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It covers the basic function but could include more detail without becoming verbose. Not all necessary information is front-loaded; it's minimal.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context. It does not mention return values, side effects, or prerequisites. A mutation tool like this needs more thorough description to be complete.

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 schema documents each parameter. The description adds 'optional notes' which correlates to the notes parameter, but does not explain other parameters like files_modified beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool marks a step as completed with optional notes, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fail_step or start_step, but the purpose is still evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fail_step. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use information. The usage context is entirely implied.

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