complete_chain

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further by disclosing concrete side effects: auto-closing the associated ticket for bug-fix/maintenance chains and an advisory-only closure suggestion for other chain types. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the flags, though it omits whether the auto-close 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?

The action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the bulleted lifecycle behavior is compact. The phrase 'Lifecycle hooks per Decision 1' burns space on an opaque internal reference an agent cannot resolve.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The description covers the key side-effect branching, leaving only minor gaps such as what happens to chain links on completion.

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 is a single parameter (chain_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies only when schema coverage is high; here the schema offers only 'Chain identifier' and the description does not compensate with format or sourcing guidance.

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 verb and resource ('Mark entire chain complete'), which clearly separates it from the sibling complete_chain_link. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with archive_chain or set_chain_status, which are the nearest ambiguous alternatives, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 implies usage through the lifecycle-hook behavior (bug-fix/maintenance vs other chain types), but never states when to call this versus archive_chain, set_chain_status, or complete_chain_link. Context is implied rather than spelled out.

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