rx_complete_assignment

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that data in RX is mutated, the assignment closes, the process advances, and the action is irreversible ('отменить это нельзя') plus that it acts on the user's behalf. Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), so this added irreversibility context is genuinely valuable rather than redundant.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and its modes, then the irreversibility warning, then the prerequisite step. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, irreversibility, defaults and the recommended pre-check. It omits any mention of auth/permission requirements or what the response contains, but the core decision-relevant context is present.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description still adds value by clarifying that the default result is derived from the task type rather than a single fixed value, and by tying result values to assignment modes, which is slightly more than the schema states.

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 ('Выполнить задание от имени пользователя') and enumerates the three concrete outcome modes (complete, Accepted, ForRework), so the agent knows exactly what the call achieves. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as rx_abort_task or rx_create_simple_task.

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 prerequisite workflow: inspect the assignment first via rx_get_assignment and relay it to the user before acting. It also explains the default-result behavior when no result is supplied, which steers invocation. No explicit 'when not to use' or negative cases are given.

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