item_done

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., state mutation, irreversibility) or permissions required. It only states the action and inputs, leaving the agent uninformed about consequences.

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 concise (one sentence) with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring or adding bullet points for clarity, but it remains effective and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (4 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value, the meaning of gate_results structure, or the overall impact on the item. The tool's completeness is lacking for an agent to reliably invoke it.

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 0%, and the description only partially addresses two of four required parameters (commit_id, gate_results). It omits 'id' and 'changelog', providing no additional meaning beyond the input schema. For a tool with complex nested objects, this is insufficient.

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 tool resolves an item as completed, specifying the required inputs (commit id and gate results). It distinguishes from sibling tools like item_add, item_update, item_deprecate, which handle different lifecycle operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., item_deprecate for marking items as deprecated). The description does not provide context for appropriate or inappropriate usage scenarios.

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