complete_intent

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains key behaviors: outcome summary is the 'most valuable artifact', the uncommitted flag escalates collision warnings, and it instructs to omit unknown fields. It does not address reversibility or permissions, but overall provides substantial behavioral context.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then outcome guidance, then git facts. Every sentence contributes essential operational detail; no filler.

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?

For a tool with 6 params and no output schema, the description explains the purpose of each param in operational context and the workflow. It stops short of describing the tool's return value or post-conditions, but that may not be needed.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds practical guidance: how to gather files via git diff, what uncommitted means for other agents, and that outcome should cover 'what actually changed, surprises, dead ends'. A minor ambiguity: says outcome required for 'done' while schema requires it always.

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?

Description opens with 'Close out an intent when work finishes or is abandoned' — a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like post_intent (create) and update_intent (modify).

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?

States explicitly when to use: 'when work finishes or is abandoned'. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, relying on sibling names to disambiguate.

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