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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully adds that the operation is reversible via trengo_reopen_ticket, which materially softens the destructive signal. It still omits side effects such as notifications to the contact or SLA/status changes, so it is not fully transparent.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the optional parameter, the undo path, and the endpoint. No filler sentences.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema, no output schema exists, and reversibility plus the result-listing dependency are covered. The remaining gap is operational context (what closing actually changes on the ticket), which is minor for a two-parameter action.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds discoverability value by pointing at trengo_list_ticket_results as the source of valid ticket_result_id values. The required ticket_id needs no further explanation.

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 a ticket') plus an optional modifier ('optionally applying a ticket result'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like trengo_reopen_ticket or trengo_assign_ticket. The API endpoint is also given, pinning the exact operation.

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?

Routes the agent to two relevant siblings: trengo_list_ticket_results for obtaining a valid result id, and trengo_reopen_ticket for undoing the action. It does not spell out when NOT to close (e.g., preconditions like ticket state), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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