complete_phase

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it marks a phase as completed and may advance, but it omits prerequisites (e.g., existence of a current phase), side effects on tasks, and failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and optional behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description doesn't address edge cases like the last phase or missing current phase, and its mutation side effects are under-specified. Given the schema richness, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 100%, with both parameters already described. The description adds that notes summarize accomplishments, which is a minor semantic addition, but it doesn't explain the advance trigger (no explicit parameter). Since schema covers parameter names and defaults, 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?

The description clearly states the action (mark as completed) and the optional advance, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_task (for tasks) and next_phase (advance without completing). The verb 'Mark' is specific and the resource 'current phase' is unambiguous.

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 this tool is used when you want to complete the current phase, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_phase or next_phase. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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