complete_checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint (consensus approval gating) but omits the HIL (human-in-the-loop) verification behavior hinted by the hil_expiry_seconds parameter, and it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or response behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with a conditional clause—and every phrase contributes meaningful guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then adds a critical condition.

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?

Although the tool is relatively simple and the schema covers parameter semantics, the description misses important behavioral context about HIL verification and post-completion effects. It mentions consensus approval but does not tie it to the hil_expiry_seconds parameter or explain the verification email flow, leaving the agent to infer those details from the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (milestone_id, order, hil_expiry_seconds) well-described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function ('Mark a milestone checkpoint as completed') and adds a relevant condition about consensus approval. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_checkpoint and complete_project, which address different actions on different resources.

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?

The description provides clear context on when completion is allowed: it cannot be completed until the proposal passes if consensus approval is required. This serves as an implicit when-not, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or other usage exclusions.

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