complete_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It covers the main action, the effect on the step, and two important edge cases (skipped results in audit recording, stale_claim instructs to stop working). It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but the coverage is good.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return behavior including edge cases. Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values fully. However, it could mention typical usage sequencing relative to other step lifecycle tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does so effectively: step_id is described as 'Your step ID. Inferred from $SORTIE_STEP_ID if unset.' and summary as 'What you did and what you found. This becomes the step output visible to downstream steps.' This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Mark your step as done with a summary of what you accomplished.' This directly communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like fail_step or abort_branch.

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 explains that step_id can be inferred from the environment variable and describes special return cases (skipped, stale_claim). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fail_step or abort_branch, leaving some ambiguity.

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