architect_task_complete

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), so the safety story is partially covered. The description adds one useful boundary ('never accepts or publishes documents'), but says nothing about what the required lease_token implies, whether operations are applied atomically, or what happens on lease expiry.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key scope restriction. No filler.

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 five-parameter, all-required mutation tool with an undocumented nested operations array and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what shape the operations must take or what the lease_token governs.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. run_id, task_id, lease_token, and the opaque 'operations' array of objects are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 says 'submit scoped proposal operations,' but the tool is named architect_task_complete, and the relationship between 'completing a task' and 'submitting proposal operations' is never explained. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like architect_sdd_propose, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous.

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?

No indication is given of when to call this versus architect_sdd_propose, architect_task_claim, or architect_task_heartbeat. There are no preconditions, no exclusions, and no alternative named.

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