advisor_close_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: the session is retained on the Kimi side for review, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention idempotency, permissions, or effects on pending operations, leaving some 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the key behavioral caveat. No unnecessary words or repetition, achieving excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information: the action, the parameter semantics, and the retention behavior. It could mention error scenarios or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this straightforward operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that task_id is optional and that omitting it targets the current conversation, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This is sufficient for a single optional parameter.

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 action: marking an advisor session as complete, with a specific resource (advisor session) and an optional task_id parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, consult, poll, list) by focusing on the closing action.

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 usage by mentioning 'current conversation or task_id specified', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions. No clear 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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