close_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and excels: it discloses the refund calculation (unfilled units × per-unit reward), non-refundable deploy fee, idempotency on already-closed tasks, operator dependence, and fallback behavior. This goes far beyond basic side-effect disclosure.

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 compact (about 70 words) and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by critical details. Every sentence adds value—refund math, fee policy, idempotency, and operator fallback—without fluff. The parenthetical is effective for the alternative tool reference.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what, who, when, and what happens next, including edge cases (idempotency, operator downtime). No critical gaps are apparent for a single-parameter mutation tool.

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?

The schema has only 'task_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by clarifying that the tool operates on an FCFS pool bounty, making it clear that task_id is the unique identifier of that bounty. While not explicitly mapping the parameter, the context strongly implies its role, adding some meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Close'), the resource ('your FCFS pool bounty'), and the scope ('poster-only'), along with the key effects (refund unfilled budget, stop submissions). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directly naming 'reclaim' as an alternative, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'poster-only', indicating who should use it, and provides an alternative path: 'if the operator is ever down, use `reclaim`'. It also implies the timing ('after the authorization deadline') for the fallback, giving clear decision-making context.

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