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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses the required agent-writes switch and that closing is treated as a destructive action subject to review approval by default. It does not say whether closing is reversible or whether reopening is possible, but the gating and approval behavior are clearly surfaced.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then states the two key operational constraints. Every sentence earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are documented, and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description also covers authorization and approval gating, though it could say more about reversibility or the practical effect of closing.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: closing an issue or pull request. It is clear and distinguishable in general, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as github_merge or github_delete.

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?

It states prerequisites — the org's agent-writes switch and review settings — but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to close, or how this relates to github_merge, github_delete, or work_close.

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