complete_delegation

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It indicates a state-changing action and one consequence (recovery can continue), but does not say whether closing is reversible, what side effects occur, what happens if the delegation is already closed, or any authorization 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it communicates the action and purpose efficiently. It loses a point only because 'Checkpoint/close' is compact to the point of being ambiguous.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too thin for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations. It fails to explain required parameters, optional outcome fields, or the lifecycle context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the 6 parameters. Terms like status, artifact, missing_delta, and next_dependency are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot correctly populate them from this description.

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 action ('Checkpoint/close') applied to a specific resource ('a bounded delegation') and gives a clear rationale ('so recovery can continue without rediscovery'). It distinguishes the tool's role from siblings like delegation_status or authorize_delegation, though it does not name them.

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 rationale implies the tool is used at a delegation checkpoint during recovery, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions under which a delegation should not be completed.

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