complete_delegation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Mark as completed' implies mutation/state change, but it doesn't describe side effects: what happens to the delegation's associated follow-ups, whether completion is reversible, or what the response includes. The output schema exists but isn't referenced.

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded and to the point. However, there is room to add value without sacrificing conciseness, such as noting the state transition that occurs.

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 state-changing mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain prerequisites (delegation must exist, must be in a delegatable state), side effects on related records, or what the output schema contains. The high schema coverage and output schema help, but a mutation tool needs richer behavioral context.

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% and there is only 1 parameter (delegation_id), which the schema itself describes as 'ID of the delegation to complete.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 'Mark a delegation as completed.' provides a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from most siblings (create/update/search/get delegations), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from complete_commitment or complete_follow_up, which share the 'complete_X' pattern. The purpose is clear but minimal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_commitment or complete_follow_up. Nor does it explain when a delegation should be marked completed versus left in a different state or updated. No when/why/exclusion context is provided at all.

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