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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the reason persists as closed with who closed it and when, that no run reads it again (an irreversible downstream effect despite destructiveHint=false), and the auth requirement that only a signed-in person, not a key, can close one. Rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and then layer on behavior and auth constraints. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place; no padding.

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 two-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, persistence, and downstream effect, leaving little for the agent to infer. It does not mention error or idempotency behavior, but the annotations partially signal the latter.

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 coverage is only 50% (the 'words' param is undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by explaining it is the person's own words captured 'when they give any', signaling optionality. The reason_id is already covered by the schema's cross-reference to read_how_tommo_learns.

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 (close) and resource (a learned reason of a tommo's synthesis) with the qualifying condition 'no longer true'. This cleanly inverts the sibling open_a_learned_reason_again, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

'that is no longer true' gives a clear condition for when to use it, and the inverse sibling (open_a_learned_reason_again) is implicitly the alternative. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so not a full 5.

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