gsd_phase_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions updating the roadmap, which is a useful side-effect, but it does not explain whether the action is reversible, if any validations occur, or what happens to related phases or todos. For a mutation tool, this is minimal and insufficient.

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, tightly worded sentence that leads with the primary action and includes a key side effect. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it states the core action and side effect. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., phase must be in progress) or post-conditions (e.g., how the roadmap changes), which would make it fully 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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter with a clear description ('Phase number to complete') and constraints (integer, >0). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Mark a phase as complete') and the resource ('phase'), plus an additional outcome ('update roadmap'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_complete_milestone, which targets a different resource.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsd_complete_milestone or gsd_execute_phase. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints to help an agent choose correctly.

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