complete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return behavior ('Returns the updated project detail'), but it omits mutation consequences entirely: whether completing cascades to child tasks, whether the action is reversible, and what happens if the project is already complete.

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?

Two sentences with the action front-loaded and the return behavior as the only supplementary detail. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 mutating tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it discloses the action and return but leaves side effects, reversibility, and the relationship to sibling edit/delete operations unspecified. An agent cannot predict the consequences of calling it.

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%, with the id parameter already documented as the project's primary key. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Mark a project as done') with the resource clearly identified, and the parenthetical '(complete)' removes ambiguity about the state change. The dedicated completion semantics distinguish it from sibling operations like edit_project or delete_project, which cover modification and removal.

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 intended use — completing a project — is implied by the action verb, but the description gives no explicit context about when to choose this over edit_project (which could set a status) or drop_project, nor any exclusions. There is no 'when not to use' guidance.

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