close_agent

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description carries full burden and informs significantly: it details financial effects (repaying facility loans, sweeping unspent funds), resource disposition (disabling keys), irreversibility, and authentication needs. This is rich behavioral context, though it omits potential edge cases or error conditions.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded, opening with the core action, then listing specific effects and warnings in a compact format. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, and the parenthetical about welcome credit adds precision without bloat.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: irreversible action, financial outcomes, key handling, and authentication. It doesn't mention the response format or whether the agent is hard-deleted vs. deactivated, but these are secondary to the primary behavioral effects.

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 sole parameter agent_id is fully described in the schema as 'Numeric agent id', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed for a simple identifier, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific action: 'Permanently close an agent' and enumerates the consequences (repays loans, sweeps funds, disables keys). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_agent and resume_agent, which are temporary, and the explicit 'Irreversible' further clarifies its purpose.

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 when to use it through 'Permanently' and 'Irreversible', but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The developer key requirement is a useful prerequisite, but there's no direct comparison with pause_agent or other lifecycle tools.

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