scf_complete_evidence_task

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

Annotations already mark it as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the editor role requirement, that the status is set to completed, that a completion date is stamped, and that notes are persisted. It does not mention reversibility or idempotency, but for a simple status transition this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The purpose and role are front-loaded, followed by the two behavioral effects and the notes detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool is a simple state transition with two simple parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the essential call context: what changes, who can call it, and what inputs matter. It could mention error cases or idempotency, but nothing required for a correct call 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have good descriptions — task_id even points to how to obtain it (scf_list_evidence_tasks) and completion_notes says 'Notes recorded on completion'. The description adds minor value by clarifying that completion notes are optional and that a completion date is stamped, but the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Mark an evidence collection task completed (write — editor role)', which unambiguously identifies the action and target. It further specifies what the operation does — sets status to completed, stamps the completion date, stores optional notes — making it distinct from sibling tools like create/update/delete evidence task variants.

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 context is clear: use this tool when an evidence collection task should be transitioned to completed, with optional notes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for other edits use scf_update_evidence_task'), so it misses the top tier, but the described purpose makes the usage situation obvious enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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