complete_follow_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It doesn't explicitly say this is a mutating/write operation, though 'mark...as completed' strongly implies state change. It doesn't mention return values, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. Acceptable but minimal for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that convey the purpose and relationship to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place, and the shorthand framing efficiently communicates intent without redundancy.

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 there's only one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool does. The shorthand reference to update_follow_up gives useful context for agents familiar with that tool. It's complete for a simple single-parameter mutation tool.

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 single parameter follow_up_id has 100% schema coverage with a clear description 'ID of the follow-up to complete.' The description reinforces the semantic by stating the context of the parameter. With only one parameter and full schema coverage, there's little room for additional parameter explanation.

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 'Mark a follow-up as completed' with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies it's a shorthand for update_follow_up with status=completed, which effectively distinguishes its purpose from the sibling update_follow_up tool.

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 a clear usage context by framing it as a shorthand for update_follow_up with status=completed. This implicitly signals when to use this tool (when you just want to complete a follow-up without specifying other fields) versus the more general update_follow_up alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or when NOT to use it.

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