close_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutation (retracting contradicts edges), the queue state change, and that the doubt persists in history, plus how resolution is stored as provenance. It omits auth/permission needs and whether a close can be undone (e.g. via un/settle), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with the core action first, a clarifying em-dash clause on the side effect, and the optional-parameter note last. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior well, but it never mentions the `initiative` scoping parameter, leaving an agent without guidance on a third of the inputs.

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 67%; the description's note on `resolution` being recorded as provenance largely repeats the schema's own description. The `initiative` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Close an open review on a node') with the actual mechanism spelled out: it retracts the contradicts edge(s) so the node leaves the review queue. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sync_review, resolve, refute, and settle.

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?

States the triggering condition ('open review') and the effect ('leaves the review queue'), giving clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. sync_review, resolve, settle) or say when not to use it, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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