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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses authorization requirements, the cascade side effects, partial-skip semantics for foreign needs, and that the operation is irreversible with no rollback of already-unpublished/stopped items on later failure.

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 the action and cascade, then prerequisite, then workflow, then caveats. Dense slash-delimited phrasing packs a lot in, but it remains scannable and no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers auth, cascade, preview output counts, skip results, and irreversibility for a destructive 3-param tool with no output schema. Minor gap: it doesn't say what the committed result contains or how goalId is obtained, though sibling get_collaboration_goal covers lookup.

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?

The schema already documents status enum values and the preview default, so the description's added value is the workflow meaning of preview (dry-run vs. commit) rather than restating types; it does not elaborate on goalId but that is self-evident.

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+resource (close the collaboration goal) and its cascade scope (unpublish own public recruit needs, stop task-series rules/pending periods), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling update_collaboration_goal which only changes status without cascading.

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 the prerequisite (logged-in / goal owner), a mandatory two-step workflow (preview=true shows N needs / M rules / K periods, then preview=false after explicit confirmation), and the alternative path for other people's needs (skipped=not_your_need, author must call unpublish_need).

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