hcm_force_close_checklist

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the notion of approval via 'approval unless --write'. However, --write has no corresponding parameter in the schema, so the disclosure is confusing and incomplete. The description also says nothing about consequences, reversibility, or the meaning of 'approval' in this flow.

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 a single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. The parenthetical is cryptic and arguably adds confusion, which keeps it from being perfect.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, an undocumented nested body object, and no parameter descriptions, one sentence is insufficient. The agent is left without information about what body should contain, when approval is required, what side effects force-closing has, or how this relates to the write-approval workflow suggested by sibling tools.

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% and the description does not explain checklistId or body. The required checklistId is inferable from the tool's name and action, but body is completely opaque, and the --write mention muddles rather than clarifies parameter or behavioral semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Force-close') and resource ('allocated checklist'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hcm_allocate_checklist and hcm_get_checklist. The parenthetical 'approval unless --write' introduces ambiguity, but the core action is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use force-close versus alternatives such as hcm_update_task_status, hcm_list_pending_approvals, or hcm_approve_write/hcm_deny_write. The phrase 'allocated checklist' implies a precondition, but it is never explicitly stated, and no when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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