rx_complete_assignment

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent safety profile, and the description adds material context beyond that: the data change in RX, that the task closes and the process advances, and critically that the action cannot be cancelled. It also documents that the result defaults per task type and that signing is out of scope. Note: 'cannot be cancelled' is a soft tension with destructiveHint=false, but completing a task is an irreversible state change, not data destruction, so it is not a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, exclusions, and pre-call guidance in a logical order with zero filler. The resolution enumeration in the first sentence is long but each variant carries selection meaning; slightly dense, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is missing elsewhere: the prerequisite review step, the side effects (task closes, process advances), irreversibility, and the signing exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is absent.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both the id and the result parameter, including per-type defaults and Russian synonyms. The description only restates the default-result behavior ('Без result берётся стандартный результат для типа задания') without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (execute an assignment on behalf of the user) and enumerates the concrete resolution types it covers (complete, accept, approve with/without comments, return for revision, acknowledge, review). It explicitly distinguishes itself from signing-related siblings by stating that signing tasks are not handled here. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use context and an exclusion (signing tasks, where the signature is placed only in RX), and names the prerequisite alternative tool rx_get_assignment with the instruction to review and relay the task to the user first. Both the selection condition and the pre-call workflow are stated, not left to inference.

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