complete_mapping

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a job must be leased and that failure hands it back for retry, which is useful context, but it doesn't say what happens to the summary, whether completion is idempotent, or whether an expired lease blocks the call.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the mutation semantics. The remaining gap is the unexplained queue_id provenance and what a "mapping job" entails, which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.

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 67%, so most parameters are documented structurally; queue_id has no description in either place and the description doesn't clarify where it comes from. The "hand it back if it failed" phrasing loosely maps to the failed flag but adds nothing beyond the schema's own wording about retry.

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?

States a specific verb (finish) and resource (a leased mapping job), and the parenthetical distinguishes the success and failure paths. It doesn't explain what a "mapping" is or how it relates to next_mapping/complete_distillation, but the operation itself is identifiable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "leased" suggests this is the terminal step after leasing a job (presumably via next_mapping), and "hand it back if it failed" hints at the failure path. No sibling is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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