Close Issue

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

With annotations only indicating readOnlyHint=false, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states it automatically finds and executes a transition, requires pre-calls for resolution selection, and returns the list of transitions in the closed status. This provides meaningful context beyond the minimal annotation.

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 appropriately structured: a clear first sentence, a brief explanation of the tool's convenience, then a numbered list of prerequisites, and a final note on return value. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a mutation tool: it explains prerequisites, how to pick a valid resolution, what the tool does automatically, and what it returns. Given the output schema exists, the description covers the necessary workflow without over-explaining details already in structured fields.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable context by explaining that resolution_id must be chosen from the issueTypesConfig matching the issue's type, which clarifies the selection process beyond the schema's simple 'must be from get_resolutions' statement.

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 'Close a Yandex Tracker issue with a resolution' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it is a convenience tool that automatically finds a 'done' transition, differentiating it from generic transition execution or update tools.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (closing issues) and gives mandatory pre-steps that must occur before calling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios (like issue_execute_transition), so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is strong.

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