complete_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, or state requirements. The optional 'message' parameter suggests completion messaging, but the description doesn't explain the behavior or consequences.

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 a single sentence, concise and unambiguous. It front-loads the action, but it could benefit from a brief note on lifecycle context. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The description is minimal for a lifecycle operation. It doesn't explain that the progressToken must reference an active progress operation, nor does it mention the relationship to start_progress. The optional message and completion semantics are unclear. Given the simplicity and schema coverage, some gaps remain.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about progressToken format, message constraints, or usage context.

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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' and clearly identifies the resource 'progress operation' and action 'complete'. It distinguishes from siblings like start_progress and update_progress, as 'complete' is a distinct lifecycle stage.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus notify, start_progress, or update_progress. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., that a progress operation must be in progress) or lifecycle placement.

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