complete_run

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 the append-only supersession chain and the receipt requirement for verified_success, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like CAS preconditions, idempotency semantics, or what happens on conflicting updates.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key constraint. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 complex 17-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the most critical behavioral constraints (receipt requirement, supersession chain) and the schema covers all parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so return values are documented. It could elaborate on governed-v2 CAS preconditions, but the schema already describes those, so the description is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context to key parameters: 'verified_success requires a matching current server-minted governed receipt' explains verification_receipt_id, and 'append-only supersession chain' explains supersedes_outcome_id. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs 'Append or correct' and identifies the resource 'run outcome', clearly stating what the tool does. It also includes the constraint 'without changing memory ranking or policy', which distinguishes it from memory-related sibling tools like store, forget, and revise.

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 clear context for when to use: for new runs with verified_success requiring a receipt, and for corrections forming a supersession chain. It implies this is for finalizing outcomes rather than recording intermediate events (sibling record_run_event), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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