Finalize a permitted action by submitting its outcome and summary, then receive a full 3-signature proof chain.
[deprecated in v3.0.0 — use gateway.aeoess.com REST API] Complete a permitted action and get the full 3-signature proof chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Outcome of the action | |
| summary | Yes | Brief description of what was accomplished | |
| intent_id | Yes | Intent ID from execute_with_context result |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action 'complete' implies a mutation but does not explain permissions, side effects, reversibility, failure modes, or the structure of the proof chain. The deprecation note is useful context but does not compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.
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, tightly scoped sentence with the deprecation notice front-loaded. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
With no output schema, the description indicates the return concept ('full 3-signature proof chain') but does not detail its shape or behavior. The parameters are well-covered by the schema, and the deprecation guidance is complete, but for a state-changing tool, the absence of side-effect and permission context leaves some 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., intent_id provenance, status enum, summary). It does not enhance or clarify parameter semantics further.
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 ('complete') and identifies the resource ('a permitted action') plus the key output ('full 3-signature proof chain'). It is clear about the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'complete_task' beyond the proof-chain detail.
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 explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and provides a direct alternative ('use gateway.aeoess.com REST API'). This gives unambiguous when-not-to-use guidance and names a replacement, exceeding typical usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.