nexo_lifecycle_complete_canonical

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that plan_id mismatch leads to rejection and that Brain marks canonical_done_at only on this confirmation. It could mention more about side effects or response, but given the tool's nature, it is adequately transparent.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the action and context. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the tool's purpose and critical condition. Slightly more could be said about return values or error behavior, but for a simple confirmation tool, it is largely complete.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context: canonical_plan_id must match Brain's returned plan; results is for per-action outcomes. This adds meaning beyond schema.

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 explicitly states the tool confirms Desktop finished executing canonical_actions from a prior nexo_lifecycle_event call, and that Brain marks canonical_done_at only on this confirmation. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like nexo_lifecycle_event and nexo_lifecycle_status.

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?

Description specifies the usage context: after Desktop executes canonical_actions from a prior lifecycle event. It references the prior call and the condition for marking completion. Does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but provides sufficient guidance.

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