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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, but the description adds the specific side effect of returning the printer to autoprint rotation, which is crucial for the agent to understand the impact. It also warns to confirm with the user, which goes beyond the annotation's basic destructive flag. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loads the core action and side effect, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally cover return behavior, but it doesn't. More importantly, it misses skip_resolve_linked entirely, and while it covers the main usage and effects, it lacks a complete parameter explanation. For a destructive tool, the missing parameter is a notable gap.

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 explains completion_summary and resolve_problem_ids ('to close the problems this job fixed'), but does not mention skip_resolve_linked at all. job_id is obvious from the name, but the fourth parameter is left undocumented. This is a partial explanation, not fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('close'), a resource ('maintenance job'), and a clear effect ('returns the printer to the autoprint rotation'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like cancel_maintenance_job or start_maintenance_job, and the wording is 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?

It explicitly states when to call it ('only call it when the work has actually been carried out') and instructs to confirm with the user first. This is strong usage guidance, even though it doesn't name alternatives, it clearly delineates the appropriate context.

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