continuum_complete_action

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the cost of omission ('leaves the action uncertain and blocks recovery') and the purpose of consumed_inputs ('recorded for restore-point admissibility') with its default of none. It does not address idempotency, retry, or what happens if completion is reported twice for the same action_key.

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 sentences ordered well: what it is, exactly when to call it, then the optional input. The consumed_inputs parenthetical is dense but every clause conveys real information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the workflow guidance is solid, but an agent still cannot learn where run_id comes from or what result and external_id are expected to contain. The core pairing with continuum_intercept_action is explained; the remaining required/optional fields are not.

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 explains action_key (returned by continuum_intercept_action) and enumerates the sub-fields of consumed_inputs in useful detail, but run_id, result, and external_id are completely undocumented in either place, leaving 3 of 5 parameters opaque.

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 ('Report that ... succeeded') and resource (an intercepted action), tying it to the exact lifecycle stage. The 'intercepted action' framing separates it cleanly from continuum_fail_action, continuum_compensate_action, and continuum_intercept_action without needing to see the 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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('immediately after performing the side effect') and names the sibling that supplies the required key (continuum_intercept_action), plus a consequence for skipping. It does not explicitly route the failure path to continuum_fail_action, so the when-not is only implied by the word 'succeeded'.

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