Close an open debugging investigation by recording its root cause and fix; solved status stores one pitfall memory, while abandoned status stores none.
WRITE. Close the open investigation with root_cause and fix; status solved (default) writes one pitfall memory pointing at it, abandoned writes none.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fix | Yes | ||
| status | No | solved | |
| root_cause | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the tool as a WRITE and discloses the concrete side effect that status=solved creates one pitfall memory pointing at the closed investigation while abandoned creates none. It omits what happens if no investigation is open, whether closing is reversible, and whether any other status values are accepted.
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?
One dense sentence, front-loaded with the 'WRITE.' classification and the core action. Every clause carries information, though wording like 'pointing at it' is slightly compressed and costs a moment of parsing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the critical mutation side effect. It falls short on edge cases: behavior when no investigation is open, irreversibility of the close, and the full valid value set for status.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It valuably explains the status parameter's semantics and reveals two valid values ('solved', 'abandoned') plus the default, but says nothing about the required root_cause and fix beyond naming them – no expected format, length, or content guidance.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (close the open investigation) and names the required inputs (root_cause, fix). It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings investigation_open, investigation_log, and investigation_status, and the leading 'WRITE.' marker immediately separates it from the read-style memory/session tools.
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 phrase 'the open investigation' implies the prerequisite that an investigation must be open, which is useful context. However, it never names an alternative or states when an agent should close with 'solved' vs 'abandoned' – the choice is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.