a4a_inbox_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the two-phase ordering (local commit first, signed network ACK second), the partial-failure state (network_ack_state=pending), and the idempotent retry path. It omits what happens on a duplicate completion with a different status and says nothing about required authorization or the rest of the response shape.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its legal statuses before the protocol mechanics. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact with no restatement of the name or schema.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers ordering, partial failure, retry, and rejection cases, and it even names one response field. The unexplained seq parameter and the absence of any authorization or double-completion note are the remaining gaps.

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, and it partially does: it names the two legal status values (processed/failed) not encoded as an enum in the schema, and explains lease_token's role in retrying only the ACK. The seq parameter is never mentioned and lease_token's provenance is unstated, leaving real gaps.

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 and resource ('Complete a lease') and constrains the outcome ('status=processed or failed'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly separate itself from the similarly named a4a_dialogue_complete or say the lease originates from a4a_inbox_next, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word 'lease'.

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 concrete when-to-retry guidance ('repeat the exact call with the same lease token to retry only the ACK') and two exclusions (expired leases rejected, unknown work must not be repeated silently). It never names an alternative tool, so an agent must infer that this pairs with a4a_inbox_next rather than a4a_dialogue_complete.

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