complete_standard_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions preview/complete and a prerequisite completion comment, but omits likely state transitions, required verification behavior, irreversibility, dry-run semantics, and whether completion can fail after preview.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action words appear early. It may be too terse for a 10-parameter mutation tool, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but this is a 10-parameter mutation with no annotations and very low schema coverage. The description does not give enough context about required verification, state changes, or project targeting for an agent to call it confidently.

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?

There are 10 parameters but only 10% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain verification, state_id, actual_minutes, follow_ups, implementation_notes, project_id, or work_item_id. It hints that 'preview' maps to dry_run and 'completion comment' may relate to summary, but most parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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 states a specific action pair, preview or complete, on started work, so an agent can infer that it finishes an existing work item rather than creating or starting one. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings such as update_standard_work_item or start_standard_work_item.

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?

It gives a prerequisite: use this after recording a factual, human-readable completion comment, and it presents preview versus complete as modes. However, it does not say when to choose this over update/start/cancel siblings, nor when not to use it.

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