complete_setup_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it is mutating, updates the checklist, and rejects unrecognized step_ids without state change. It could add idempotency details or success response, but is strong 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?

Three front-loaded sentences cover purpose, usage, and failure behavior with zero filler. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is logical.

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 essential context—mutation, usage order, validation—is covered. The output schema exists, so return values need no description, but the unexplained server_version parameter leaves a small gap.

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 only 50% (step_id has a description, server_version does not). The description adds validation context for step_id but ignores server_version, failing to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Mark one onboarding setup step as done.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it updates the workspace onboarding checklist and is the mutating counterpart to 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?

Explicitly instructs to call after actually performing the setup action and to check current progress with get_setup_status first, naming the alternative. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit precondition.

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