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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which could read as alarming. The description usefully qualifies this by stating existing contributions remain available, clarifying that the operation only halts new submissions rather than deleting data. It does not discuss auth/permission needs, but the safety delta over annotations is real.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the reassuring retention fact second. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention the confirmation requirement or already-closed behavior, but the schema and idempotentHint cover those gaps.

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 50%: confirmCloseContributions carries a strong schema description (explicit user approval required), while projectId is undocumented but self-describing. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so it neither compensates nor detracts; baseline 3.

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 (life-story project) plus the precise effect: blocking new contributor submissions. It is clearly distinguishable from delete_life_project or rename_story without opening a schema, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('to new contributor submissions'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as delete_life_project for full removal. An agent can infer intent but is not steered.

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