complete_product

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses the concrete behavior: it reads current values, resolves catalogue names, and 'never removes an existing value without confirm_delete:true.' It also explains that dry_run previews catalogue resolution and removals without writing, which is exactly the operational detail an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by scope and safety semantics; no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information about behavior.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering semantics, the confirm_delete guard, and the dry_run preview, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing what a successful run returns, but that is a minor gap given the otherwise thorough coverage.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters including dry_run and confirm_delete. The description reinforces the dry_run/confirm_delete semantics but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and scope: 'Complete the post-save CvLAC phase for an existing product,' then enumerates the managed sub-resources (keywords, areas, coauthors, recognitions, thesis students). This is far more than a restatement of the name, though it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling like update_section.

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?

It gives workflow guidance ('Use dry_run:true to preview...', confirm_delete needed for removals), which tells the agent how to invoke it safely, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus read_cvlac, update_section, or sync. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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