dhp_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Complete the handoff' implies a terminal state transition, but the description never says whether it requires a claimed handoff, whether it is idempotent/reversible, or what happens on a non-validated result beyond the passing mention of 'schema-validated'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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 no explanation, but for a mutation-style handoff-completion tool with zero annotations, three undocumented required parameters, and a nested result object, the description is far too thin to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three required parameters (handoff_id, worker_id, result), including a nested free-form result object. The description adds no format, identity, or format-of-result guidance, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Complete the handoff'), making the basic purpose legible. However, it does nothing to differentiate this from completion-adjacent siblings such as dhp_effect_done or dhp_claim, so an agent cannot route confidently without opening schemas.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus alternatives like dhp_effect_done, dhp_checkpoint, or dhp_recover, nor any stated prerequisites such as first claiming a handoff. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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