bug_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effects: it writes Fix and Root cause and mutates status to 'fixed'. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or what happens when no active bug exists, so the disclosure is partial for a state-changing tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the action and scope are front-loaded and the side effect follows immediately. Every clause 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core behavior is stated. For a mutation tool with no annotations, though, more context would help: whether it fails when no active bug is present and how the optional target is resolved.

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 names 'Fix' and 'Root cause' (matching the two required params) and hints at the optional target via 'active (or given)', but gives no format, length, or selection semantics for any of the three parameters.

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 ('Close') and resource ('bug note') plus scope ('active (or given)'), which is enough to distinguish it from bug_start and bug_append by verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'After confirmation' implies a workflow precondition (a confirmation step must precede the call), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any statement of what to do if no bug note is active.

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