complete_phase

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that key_decisions are recorded permanently and that backfill does not advance the queue, which clarifies write behavior and the safety check. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 (three sentences plus two bullet-like items) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: main action, safety requirement, special cases for backfill and git_ref. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (multiple modes, safety check) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the main use cases and parameters. However, it does not explain side effects on other system state (e.g., phase status transitions) beyond advancing the queue.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the purpose of phase_number as a safety check, the backfill workflow (with required parameters), and the git_ref linking. This frames parameters in a functional context beyond their schema definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool's main action: 'Mark the current phase as complete and advance to the next upcoming phase.' It also mentions recording key decisions permanently and includes a safety check. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_phase (creation) or defer_phase (postponement).

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 provides specific usage guidance: normal use requires phase_number to match the current phase, and it offers two alternative use cases (backfill for historical phases and linking git_ref). While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the clarity of the normal mode and backfill alternative implies appropriate contexts.

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