complete_update_set

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds only the purpose but does not disclose side effects such as locking the update set or irreversibility. It fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence plus a [Scripting] tag, conveying the essential action with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter state-change tool, the description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks context about the consequences of marking complete (e.g., whether the update set becomes locked) and how it relates to the many sibling update-set tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The schema fully describes sys_id as 'Update Set sys_id' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, 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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' with a clear object 'Update Set' and explains the intent 'ready for migration', distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_update_set or switch_update_set.

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 phrase 'ready for migration' implies the tool is used to prepare an update set for migration, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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