close

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

No annotations, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the auth requirement (posterSecret) and that the call is "free," but says nothing about what closing does to the job, whether it is reversible, who is affected, or side effects. For a state-changing job operation this is a significant gap.

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?

Short and front-loaded, which is good, but wastes tokens by repeating "(free)" twice and states the same idea redundantly. Still compact enough to read quickly.

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?

A state-mutating job tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. The description should clarify the mutation's effect and the second parameter; instead it omits both, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains poster_secret's origin ("you got when posting"), which is genuinely useful, but the "id" parameter is never mentioned and no format or meaning is given for it. Partial compensation at best.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Close your own job"), which is more than a tautology. However, "close" is ambiguous - it could mean mark complete, cancel, or remove - and the description never clarifies the resulting state or distinguishes this from siblings like deliver, claim, or jobs. Adequate but underspecified.

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?

Only guidance is a prerequisite ("needs the posterSecret you got when posting"), which implies you must be the job's poster. There is no statement of when to choose this over deliver/claim/jobs_get or any exclusion. Minimal context, no alternatives.

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