wealthbox.workflowSteps.complete

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Complete a workflow step' without explaining side effects (e.g., status change, irreversibility), permissions, or what happens on success or failure. This is a critical gap for a mutating operation.

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, short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It omits essential context and feels incomplete rather than efficiently structured. It is not a tautology, so it avoids a 1, but the brevity is not justified by the tool's complexity.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal parameter details, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly. It covers only the basic action and none of the surrounding context (e.g., effects, expected inputs, return values).

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The only parameter 'id' is unexplained—no indication of what it identifies, how to find it, or any constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name.

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 ('Complete') and the resource ('a workflow step'), making the primary purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool wealthbox.workflowSteps.revert, which also operates on workflow steps, so it misses the distinction needed for a perfect score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wealthbox.workflowSteps.revert. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or criteria for selection, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this operation.

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