bridge_complete

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation that is not idempotent and not open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags: the completion depends on a valid lease_token from bridge_claim, and a stale lease invalidates completion. It does not speculating at all, and the account for possible invalid-token errors, but the main behavioral precondition is disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical lease on constraint follows immediately. Every word contributes.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover mutation/idempotency, the description does not need to explain return values. The lease_token requirement and stale-lease restriction cover the main tricky workflow. The only real gap is the meaning of channel and task_id, which prevents a higher score.

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 only 25%, since only result has schema documentation. The description does add meaning to lease_token by identifying bridge_claim as its source, but it never explains channel or task_id, and it does not instruct how result is structured or used. This leaves most required parameters under-documented.

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 and resource: 'Mark a claimed task completed.' This clearly differentiates it from related sibling tools like bridge_claim, bridge_fail, and bridge_ack, and the lease_token condition reinforces what makes this tool distinct.

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 gives clear context: use this after a task has been claimed, and the lease_token from bridge_claim is required. It also states an explicit exclusion: a task whose lease expired and was reclaimed cannot be completed by the previous holder. It does not name sibling alternatives such as bridge_fail, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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