Complete Setup Step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is mutating, updates the checklist, and rejects unrecognized step_id values without changing state. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of discussing permissions, idempotency on already-completed steps, or side effects beyond the checklist.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences provide actionable usage guidance and an important failure behavior without wasted words.

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 description covers purpose, mutation semantics, call timing, and invalid-input behavior, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, the required server_version parameter is left entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes step_id and its allowed values, but server_version has no schema description and the tool description does not explain it either. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented required parameter, but it never mentions server_version at all.

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 specific action ('Mark one onboarding setup step as done') and the resource it affects (workspace onboarding checklist). It also explicitly identifies the operation as mutating, which distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like get_setup_status.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call after performing the actual setup action. It also instructs the agent to check get_setup_status first to avoid re-marking completed steps, providing a clear workflow and an alternative tool reference.

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