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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the precondition (not frozen) and the requirement for confirm=true. However, it does not explain what the delete/reopen actually does in terms of side effects, reversibility, or what happens to associated records. The word "reopen" hints at restoring state, but this is not explicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds useful information: the action, the parenthetical clarification, the precondition, and the required confirm flag. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 delete/reopen operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential context (precondition, confirmation) but lacks details about error conditions, return values, or consequences. It is not severely under-specified like the lowest examples, but it leaves gaps for an AI agent to assess the full impact of the operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions "confirm: true" as a required flag, which gives some meaning to that parameter. The other parameters (apiKey, orgSlug, cierreId) are not explained; their meanings are left to inference from names. The description does not clarify the role of cierreId beyond implying it is the closing being deleted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Delete (reopen) a client closing." This directly clarifies that the tool operates on a client closing, not a client, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cierre_crear_cliente and cierre_listar_clientes. The parenthetical "reopen" adds scope and nuance, making the action unambiguous.

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 the tool is allowed: "Only allowed if the organizational period is not frozen." This is a defining precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say "use this instead of X," but the condition and the action (reopen) imply it is for undoing a closing, which is sufficient context given the sibling list.

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