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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not encoded anywhere else: the to-do 'comes back by itself when what it is about changes.' However it says nothing about the auth/roster requirement beyond the schema, or about the retry behavior of idempotency_key.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no wasted filler; the core action leads and the caveat follows. The 'exactly as closing it in Audora does' clause is slightly flowery but earns its place by signalling the UI parallel.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect and its reversibility, which is the important part. It is still incomplete because it does not resolve the close_todo vs set_todo_done distinction or mention the label-connection requirement that the schema only incidentally covers.

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% and the schema fully documents all three parameters (key, artist scoping, idempotency_key). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

The verb+resource are clear (close a to-do) and the phrase 'the artist does not want to see' hints at dismissal rather than completion, but 'close' is a domain metaphor and the description never distinguishes this from the sibling set_todo_done, which an agent will inevitably confuse it with.

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 gives an explicit when-not: 'A track's or album's missing details are not closed: they are fixed,' steering the agent toward the correct handling. It stops short of naming the alternative tool and does not clarify the close-vs-mark-done boundary against set_todo_done.

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