redmine_close_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the default closed status, note formatting requirements (newlines vs escape sequences), Markdown rendering, handling of workflow-disallowed closures with hints, and honor of REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY variable.

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 concise and structured with a clear opening sentence and labeled parameter details. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given the tool's complexity (workflow interaction, read-only flag, note formatting) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral context. It explains edge cases and environment influences.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: issue_id as numeric Redmine ID, note as optional journal entry with newline and Markdown specifics. This goes well beyond the schema's basic type info.

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 clearly states the tool moves an issue to its first 'is_closed' status, defaulting to id 5. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the tool name + description distinguish it from siblings like redmine_bulk_close or redmine_delete_issue.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and context, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling (e.g., bulk_close).

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