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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context: the note is state-changed, not deleted, the 'kept' path requires a reason in 'because', and the permission model for who may close. It does not say what happens if the note is already closed (relevant since idempotentHint=false), which is the remaining gap.

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-loaded with purpose in the first clause, then outcome semantics, then permissions — no wasted sentences. The single long sentence is somewhat run-on, with the 'changed'/'kept' definitions nested mid-sentence, but every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the meaning of the required enum, the conditional 'because' requirement, and authorization. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 75%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining the enum values: 'changed (the document was changed for it) or kept (the text stays as it is, with one line why in because).' This clarifies the consequence of each outcome and the conditional requirement on 'because'; the 'note' and 'project' parameters are left to the schema, which documents them well.

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 and resource ('Closes a note or a question') plus the state transition ('once it is resolved') and the two possible outcomes. Among siblings such as add_note and keep_my_part, no other tool performs this close/resolve action, so the agent can select it unambiguously.

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 precondition ('once it is resolved') and an explicit authorization rule: 'its author or anyone who writes on the project may close it.' It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., leaving a note open or editing the document instead), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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