complete_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool finishes a step and returns the next one, and it gives handoff and responsible_step constraints, but it omits permissions, reversibility, invalid-session/error behavior, and the full shape of the returned next step.

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: purpose first, then two focused parameter notes. Every sentence adds usable guidance without repetition or filler.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the core call semantics and the most important parameter constraints. It still leaves return-content details and error/side-effect behavior implicit, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in normal use.

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 33%, but the description compensates by explaining the two undocumented parameters: handoff should be one to three sentences naming the actual result and its use by the next step, and responsible_step is a procedure step 0–9 where the cause lies on a trace step. session_id is already described in the schema. Minor ambiguity remains around defaults and the conditional 'required' wording.

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: 'Finish the current SOP step' and the immediate outcome 'receive the next one'. The parenthetical '(not a verify step)' distinguishes it from verify-related siblings such as report_verification, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: completing the current SOP step rather than a verify step. It does not explicitly name report_verification as the alternative or spell out prerequisites like start_session, but the exclusion is actionable enough for correct routing.

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