complete_action

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the bilateral receipt concept but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or security implications. Basic transparency is provided, but deeper detail is missing.

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 with two sentences covering purpose and usage, plus parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 2 required parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the input and process. It does not detail the output schema (unnecessary given its existence), but it misses preconditions like having an approved action. Overall, the context is sufficient for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning: gate_id is 'returned by gate_action when it approved the action' and result is 'a description or JSON string of the action's outcome'. This clarifies origin and format, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose: 'Sign the outcome of a gate-approved action and bind it to the approval signature as a bilateral receipt'. This specific verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from siblings like gate_action or sign_action.

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 specifies that gate_id comes from gate_action when it approved the action, and result describes the outcome. This provides clear context for when to use the tool (after approval). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like sign_action.

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