Close a node that is not the focus

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a guard that refuses to close over open closure conditions, the terminal-only '--force' escape hatch, and the human-visibility requirement. It stops short of saying what happens to a partially-resolved node's remaining data.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger condition, then the guard and alternative. Efficient, though the dense domain vocabulary ('closure conditions,' 'a record, whose outcome starts with Record:') makes it read as compressed rather than clean.

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?

With only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the action, trigger, guard, and alternative to vivac_pop. What is missing is the failure/return behavior when the closure guard blocks the call, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'id' and 'outcome' are already documented by the schema. The description reinforces the Record: prefix convention for outcome but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'close a node that is not the focus, recording what came of it,' and explicitly contrasts with 'vivac_pop closes the focus.' The scope term 'not the focus' is domain jargon that assumes familiarity, but the core action and its sibling boundary are identifiable.

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?

Gives concrete invocation conditions ('right after writing a lesson or a measurement that asks nothing of anyone... or work that was finished somewhere else') and a when-not ('never closes over open closure conditions'). It routes the agent to vivac_pop for the focus case but does not enumerate how other siblings (e.g. vivac_add, vivac_push) differ.

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