workflow_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (marking as done) but says nothing about idempotency, whether the change is reversible, permissions required, or side effects on related items — all material for a state-changing 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the prerequisite — no filler. It could be tightened marginally but every sentence carries information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, when to use it, and how to obtain the ID. It omits reversibility, permission requirements, and whether any result is returned, leaving meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the UUID of the entry. The description only adds that the ID should be sourced from workflow_list, which is modest but real added value; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a workflow entry as done'), so an agent immediately knows this is a state-transition operation on a workflow entry. It is distinguishable from workflow_list and workflow_log by naming the 'done' outcome, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when a task is completed or a tracked item is resolved') and a concrete prerequisite ('Use workflow_list first to find the entry ID'). It lacks a when-not clause or mention of an alternative tool for reopening/undoing, but the context is clear.

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