bus_complete_task

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes that the result summary is delivered to the sender, but says nothing about state transitions, whether completion is reversible, what happens if the task was never claimed, or what the caller receives back.

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?

One short sentence with the action and the key precondition front-loaded and no wasted words. The brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage needs considerably more description to be safely invocable. The precondition and the result parameter are covered, but the agent identity, task id semantics, and outcome behavior are all missing.

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 all three parameters rely on the description. Only the optional "result" parameter is addressed (as a summary for the sender); "id" and "agent" are never explained, leaving the agent to guess whether "agent" is the caller's own identity or a target.

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?

"Complete a task you claimed" gives a specific verb (complete) and resource (task), plus the precondition that the task must already be claimed, which separates it from bus_claim_task or bus_create_task. It stops short of distinguishing itself from bus_approve_task or bus_cancel_task, which are the closest alternatives in the sibling list.

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 implies the when-to-use condition by requiring the task be one "you claimed," but gives no explicit guidance on how this differs from bus_approve_task or bus_cancel_task, nor what to do when a task isn't claimed.

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