sign_off_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and mostly meets it: it discloses that the action is terminal, that refusals apply regardless of caller, and that the action records that an agent supplied the signature. It does not specify error behavior or reversibility, but 'terminal decision' covers the essential risk.

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 core statement is front-loaded and the total length is modest, but the prose is intentionally florid. Phrases like 'the strongest claim here' and 'that is not a hedge against you' add tone rather than necessary operational detail, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 provides useful behavioral context—preconditions, finality, audit logging—and an output schema covers return values. However, it is thin on parameter semantics and does not describe the exact workflow from receiving a close to accepting it, leaving a capable agent to infer part of the process.

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%, and the description never mentions run_id or note, let alone what run_id identifies or how note is recorded. The only contextual link is 'the close,' which is too indirect to supply meaning for the parameters.

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 opens with 'Accept the close,' a clear verb and resource, and reinforces it with 'terminal decision' to communicate finality. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like run_close or get_close, though it never defines what a 'close' is.

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 explicit preconditions: 'read the worklist first' and three binding refusals that an agent cannot bypass. It does not name alternative tools directly, but the worklist instruction clearly points to the get_worklist sibling and the refusals tell the agent when not to sign off.

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