invariance_case_close

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

Annotations already convey that this is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds that it closes a case by setting status to 'closed' and applying outcome fields, which is useful but does not cover reversibility, side effects, or permissions. It provides moderate additional context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and uses the equivalence statement to convey meaningful detail without redundancy. Every part 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?

This is a simple tool with annotations covering its safety profile and a schema covering most parameters. The description plus schema are sufficient for calling the tool in typical cases, though it does not explain return behavior or edge conditions. Given the tool's simplicitychers, this is nearly complete.

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 schema already describes outcome, closed_at, and value_usd, covering 75% of parameters; id is self-explanatory. The description mostly restates outcome and value_usd via the equivalence to invariance_case_update and does not add new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 identifies the action (close), the resource (case), and the intended purpose (recording an outcome). It also distinguishes itself from invariance_case_update by explicitly framing itself as a specialized equivalent, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 calls this 'the common path' and explicitly names invariance_case_update as its equivalent, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not spell out edge cases where update should be used instead, but the common-path framing gives practical guidance.

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