Close investigation

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond them by scoping the blast radius precisely (browser context and egress proxy only) and reassuring that evidence and artifacts survive until retention ends. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before a non-read operation, though it omits what happens on a re-close or an already-closed investigation.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the durability caveat immediately after. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope and data-retention behavior for a mutation tool. Minor gaps remain around preconditions (must the investigation be running?) and side effects on in-flight siblings such as collect_evidence, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents that the id comes from start_investigation, including its format pattern. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does all the work and 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?

States a specific verb ('Closes') plus the exact resources affected — the browser context and egress proxy of an investigation — which an agent can distinguish from start_investigation and the analyze/generate siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it complements or replaces, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 implied trigger (an investigation is finished and its live resources should be released) is inferable from the name and the retention sentence, but the description never states when to call it, whether the investigation must be active, or what to do instead if you only want to stop one resource. Usage remains inferred rather than guided.

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