complete_clink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral effects. It mentions the completion action and optional reply, but doesn't state side effects like whether the claim is removed, whether the reply becomes a new clink, or if completion is reversible. This is a mutation tool, so more disclosure is needed.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and every sentence adds value. The prerequisite and optional reply are stated clearly with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and prerequisite. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as what happens after completion (e.g., does the clink become read-only?) and whether the optional reply is sent as a new clink. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'response' parameter by explaining it as a reply to the original sender, which is consistent with the schema description. The 'clink_id' parameter is already self-documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a claimed clink as completed'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like claim_clink and release_clink. It also mentions the optional reply, which differentiates it further from send_clink.

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 states a clear prerequisite: 'You must have claimed the clink first.' This implies usage context and that claim_clink should be used before this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the condition is actionable and clear.

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