oc_task_run_complete

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the key behavioral trait 'Terminal TaskRuns are immutable.' However, it does not disclose other effects, failure modes, or confirmation requirements.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds an important behavioral note.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects like failed_items) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens upon success/failure or how to use optional parameters effectively.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no additional meaning for the six parameters. Parameters like progress_summary and failed_items remain unexplained beyond the 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 clearly states the action: 'Enter a terminal TaskRun state' and lists the possible states (COMPLETED, FAILED, CANCELLED). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like oc_task_run_update by implying finality, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oc_task_run_update or oc_task_run_checkpoint. No mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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