Close Card

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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations by stating that closed cards are 'archived and removed from active view'. This clarifies the tool's side effects in a way the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint do not fully capture. It does not contradict the annotations, since 'archived' implies retention rather than destruction.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It leads with the core action and result, then provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, result, and when to use it. It does not mention reversibility or relationship to fizzy_reopen_card, but the core information an agent needs to select and call it is present.

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 100%, and both 'account_slug' and 'card_numbr' have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Close'), a resource ('a card'), and the resulting state ('mark it as done/completed', 'archived and removed from active view'). This clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like fizzy_delete_card and fizzy_reopen_card.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when work on a card is finished.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when deletion is intended.

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