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

Goes well beyond the annotations: resulting status, the generated system message text, the audit event name, the 30-day reversibility window, permission scope ('any member'), notification/email delivery, a text-only limitation, and the 'via AI agent' attribution. The only blemish is the claim that closing a closed case 'changes nothing (200)', which reads as idempotent behavior while idempotentHint is declared false — a minor tension rather than a safety-relevant conflict.

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?

Front-loads the action and its state effect before the routing guidance, which is the right order. It loses a point for duplication — the opening line restates the title verbatim and the 30-day reopen window is stated twice in adjacent paragraphs.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers outcomes (status → closed, 200 no-op on repeat), permissions, notification behavior, and content constraints. An agent has everything needed to decide, call, and predict the result.

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% (case_id with its ULID pattern is fully documented inline), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the id argument beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline for a single fully-described parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (close a support case) and scopes it ('of your company, any member'). It also distinguishes the operation from its neighbors by name (reopen_support_case, get_support_case) and from the issue family (create_issue, search_issues), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Only when the user says the problem is solved or no longer needed') and an explicit exclusion ('never for the user's own project work — that is issues'). The support-case vs. issue boundary is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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