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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) the description adds real context: the action is audited, it is attributed to the signed-in user, and accepted_risk only suppresses the alert for 30 days unless it worsens. It stops short of saying whether the closure can be undone via fleet__undo or what state the advisory ends in.

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?

Three tight sentences with the operation front-loaded, then permissions, then the one non-obvious behavioral caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields without added 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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this covers permissions, auditing, and the validity window of one method. The only material gap is what the caller gets back and whether the resolution can be reversed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the four enum values the schema enumerates. It does add meaning for accepted_risk that the enum description does not carry, but advisory_id gets no additional semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Close an advisory') plus the closed set of resolution methods, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close-adjacent siblings such as fleet__acknowledge_advisory or fleet__dismiss_advisory, which an agent must choose between.

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 authorization precondition (owner, admin or member of the agency) and specifies the special case where accepted_risk applies. It never says when to pick this over acknowledge_advisory or dismiss_advisory, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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