complete_nks_generation_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful evidence precondition (the job's preset must contain verified saved artifacts), but stops short of saying what completing does to the job or artifacts, or whether the state change is reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the state precondition is front-loaded and the scope exclusion ("does not generate or validate") follows efficiently.

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 mutating lifecycle tool with full annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the key gate (verified evidence) and scope exclusions. It is largely complete, with only minor gaps around post-completion state or failure behavior.

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 both presetId and workerId are already documented in the schema as a stable catalog ID and a lease owner identity. The description adds no format, ownership, or lease semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Mark an owned NKS job done") and clarifies scope with "Does not generate or validate the artifact itself." It clearly separates itself from generation/validation concerns, though it does not name the sibling lifecycle tools (fail_nks_generation_job, heartbeat_nks_generation_job) it could be confused with.

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 an explicit precondition for invocation: "only after its catalog preset contains verified saved-artifact evidence." This is a clear when-to-use condition. However, it names no alternative tools and gives no when-not guidance beyond the single precondition.

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