item_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that executable gates are run automatically by Sprinty and only manual gates accept agent-supplied results, a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not detail potential side effects, permissions, or return 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It includes the essential gate behavior without unnecessary filler.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, required inputs, and the most subtle aspect (gate_results). It does not explain success/error responses, but the action's outcome ('completed') is clear enough for typical use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of commit_id, changelog verb (listing valid values), and the gate_results policy. It does not explain the internal structure of gate_results, but the schema provides that detail.

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 with a commit id and changelog verb, making the primary purpose unambiguous. The specific verb 'Resolve' and resource 'item' distinguish it from siblings like item_update or item_deprecate, which address different states.

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 provides useful guidance on when to supply gate_results: only for manual gates, since Sprinty runs executable gates itself. This clarifies usage boundaries but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools, leaving some implicit inference.

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