close_forum_topic

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the 'open topic' precondition, which is useful, but does not disclose permission requirements, error behavior on closed topics, or any other behavioral nuance beyond the annotation coverage.

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?

Single concise sentence with no waste. The key information is front-loaded: verb, object, and context.

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 simple nature of the operation, the two fully documented parameters, and the presence of annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is sufficient for a basic close operation. No output schema is needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions (chat_id type/format, message_thread_id semantic). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so it relies entirely on the schema's 100% 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 clearly states the action (close) and the target resource (an open topic in a forum supergroup), distinguishing it from sibling tools like reopen_forum_topic, delete_forum_topic, and close_general_forum_topic. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 implies the tool is for closing currently open topics in forum supergroups but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as close_general_forum_topic or how to handle already-closed topics. No explicit usage guidelines or exclusions are provided beyond the core purpose.

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