complete_event

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the precondition that the event must be 'claimed' and that the note is optional, but says nothing about what happens to the event afterward, required permissions, or whether triage state is discarded.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the what and the when are front-loaded in that order. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover idempotency. However, for a state-transition tool the description omits enum semantics and the post-settle state of the event, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both 'outcome' and 'optional note', which is useful, but it never explains the enum values (PROCESSED, ESCALATED, DISCARDED) or the meaning/format of event_id, leaving the most consequential parameter semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('settle') and resource ('a claimed event') with the two inputs (outcome, optional note). It is clearly distinct in intent from siblings like poll_event_queue or release_event, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

'Use this once triage of an event has finished' gives a clear triggering condition, so an agent knows the lifecycle stage at which to call it. No alternative (e.g. release_event vs. settling) or exclusion is mentioned, so it stops short of a 5.

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