ddflow_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses the exit code 3 and the three refusal conditions. The force parameter description adds that overridden conditions are recorded in the event log 'visible forever.' It doesn't describe success return values or side effects, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded, refusal conditions are compactly listed, and the model instruction is a single imperative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions and the one required call-time parameter. It doesn't state what happens on success, but the schema's force description fills in the override behavior. The main gap is success semantics, which is minor for a completion action.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a usage hint for the model parameter ('Pass your own model'), but this is more of a call-time instruction than new semantic meaning. The schema already documents id, sha, force, and model adequately.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Finish an item.' It then defines what finishing means by listing refusal conditions (exit 3 for unmet gates, open tasks, or reviewer model-family mismatch), which makes the tool's role concrete. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like ddflow_release or ddflow_abandon, but the action is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 main description gives a direct usage instruction: 'Pass your own model as 'model'.' It also implies when not to call by listing refusal conditions. The force parameter's schema description adds strong routing guidance, explicitly preferring ddflow_gate_skip over force and explaining that overrides are permanently visible in the event log.

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