close_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the behavioral impact: sets task inactive, leaves the board, is reversible, and returns a specific response. It clarifies that this is NOT a delete, which is critical for an agent to understand the side effects.

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 concise at three sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately adds key differentiators and return info, making it efficient 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, its reversible nature, alternatives, and the success response format. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is complete.

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 provides a clear description for the single parameter 'task_id' ('Id of the task to close (required).') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 (archive) an active Kanboard task.' It specifies the verb ('Close') and the resource ('active Kanboard task'), and distinguishes from the sibling tools reopen_task and delete_task, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool (to archive a task) and when not to (for permanent deletion, use delete_task). It also mentions that reopening is possible via reopen_task, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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