delimit_agent_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. The phrase '(Pro)' hints at licensing but not behavior.

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 extremely concise, fitting in a single phrase. However, it lacks any structure such as separate sections for usage or parameters. The brevity is acceptable given the simple action, but it sacrifices completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (content unknown), the description does not explain what the tool returns. It also fails to clarify how the parameters interact or what the typical use case is. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has three parameters (task_id, result, files_changed) with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on any of these. The agent must guess from names; for example, 'result' could be a summary or a confirmation message, and 'files_changed' might be a list of files, but no format is given.

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 clearly states the action (mark complete) and the resource (agent task). It includes a note about being a Pro feature, which adds context. The verb 'Mark an agent task as complete' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like delimit_agent_dispatch or delimit_agent_handoff.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. There is no comparison with alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the workflow. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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