basecamp_complete_step

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source for behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the action without explaining idempotency, error conditions, side effects, or required permissions. It adds no insight beyond the tool name.

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, clear sentence with no fluff, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It could be longer, but the current length is appropriate for the simplicity of the action, though it sacrifices completeness.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate for a basic action, but it fails to mention return behavior, idempotency, or the relationship to sibling tools like basecamp_uncomplete_step. This makes it incomplete for an agent selecting among many related tools.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (project_id, step_id) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their purpose, format, or relationships. With 0% schema coverage and no elaboration, the agent must rely on parameter name inference alone.

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 ('Mark') and the resource ('step') with the outcome ('completed'), making it unambiguous. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like basecamp_uncomplete_step, which reverses the action.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use basecamp_uncomplete_step to undo completion or basecamp_update_step for broader modifications. No context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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