chap.deliberate.close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only states that closing computes an outcome from votes. It does not mention whether the deliberation becomes locked, whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the return value is. The idempotency behavior for already-closed deliberations exists only in the parameter schema, not in the tool description, leaving a critical behavioral trait undocumented in the description itself.

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 a single sentence that leads with the action verb and includes the key result of the operation. There is no filler, redundant restatement of the tool name, or unnecessary detail. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the caller receives or how the outcome is presented, but it never specifies the return value or format. It also omits the idempotency behavior for already-closed deliberations, which appears only in the parameter schema. While input parameter coverage is strong, the absence of output and post-condition context leaves the definition incomplete for an agent.

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%, with descriptions for all three parameters (workspace, from, deliberation_id), including the important note that an already-closed deliberation id will return the outcome unchanged. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating the voting basis. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Close' and resource 'deliberation', and adds the distinct outcome-computation behavior. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like chap.deliberate.open, chap.deliberate.comment, and chap.deliberate.vote, which represent different lifecycle actions. The phrase 'under its rule' further clarifies that vote tallying follows a specific rule.

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 name alternative tools or state when not to use this one. However, the schema description for deliberation_id implies pairing with chap.deliberate.open and notes idempotency for already-closed deliberations, giving some contextual guidance. The primary description only implies usage around the voting lifecycle without explicit exclusions or alternatives such as chap.control.cancel or chap.decide.approve.

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