complete_spike

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals a genuinely useful behavior — the tool can be invoked from any status, so no state preparation is needed — and defines the content contract for findings. It doesn't disclose reversibility or downstream effects on related items, but for a narrow 2-param mutation the core workflow behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded and the em-dash clarification of findings earns its place, as does the status note. Every sentence adds information.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema carrying return-value info, the description is nearly complete: it covers the action, the content of findings, and status flexibility. The only gap is the post-condition — what state the spike ends in and whether the action is reversible.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to findings ('the answer to the question it was investigating and any recommendations'), which is the parameter most likely to confuse an agent. But spike_id receives no semantic guidance beyond its name, and findings has no format or structure details, so compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Close a spike by recording its findings' — and further clarifies findings as 'the answer to the question it was investigating and any recommendations.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like complete_task without needing to open 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?

'Works from any status' is an explicit precondition note telling the agent that no status prerequisite check is required before calling. However, it doesn't name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it (e.g., when to prefer complete_task), so it stops short of a 5.

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