intent_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining what 'completed' entails, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on related memory or planning systems. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, grammatically complete sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool and is easily parsed at a glance.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks context about return values, success/failure indicators, or potential interactions with other intent-related tools. It is not severely underspecified but not rich enough to fully guide an agent in a complex workflow.

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 has one parameter, intent_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or provide any additional meaning beyond the parameter's name, which is self-explanatory but under-supported for an agent needing to construct a valid request.

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 'Mark an intention as completed' uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('intention') with a clear outcome, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like intent_cancel or intent_due. Despite its brevity, it unambiguously communicates what the tool does.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as intent_cancel or intent_due. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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