complete_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the major side effects: recording a result, releasing the task, closing the worker, and posting a handoff, and it qualifies the operation as atomic. It does not cover idempotency or lease-failure semantics, but it is unusually explicit about the tool's mutating and terminal behavior.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence communicates the atomic operation and its four effects without filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, 5 required, 2 enums, no output schema, and no annotations. A single sentence does not provide enough context for an agent to construct a correct invocation, especially around lease_generation, idempotency_key, binding_token, and how result_kind/result_status interact with the assignment lifecycle.

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 only 10%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the key parameters: idempotency_key, lease_generation, result_kind, result_status, binding_token, or thread_id. It gives only high-level context around 'task' and 'result' rather than adding concrete semantic detail to the large parameter surface.

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 names a specific compound action: atomically record a result, release the task, close the worker, and post a handoff. This clearly identifies complete_assignment as the all-in-one finalization tool and distinguishes it from one-off siblings like release_task, complete_worker, and record_structured_result.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as release_task, commit_result, or complete_worker. Since many siblings perform overlapping partial operations, an agent is left to infer that complete_assignment is the atomic composite, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use signal.

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