close_task

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Close (complete) a task,' failing to mention important traits like whether the action is irreversible, required permissions, or effects if the task is already closed. Lacking such details, the agent has insufficient insight into the tool's consequences.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with a clear one-line purpose statement followed by a brief parameter listing. Every sentence earns its place; there is no superfluous information. For a simple tool, this level of conciseness is ideal.

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 tool's single parameter and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes the return value), the description is minimally adequate for a 'close' operation. However, it lacks any error handling, preconditions, or postcondition details. For a straightforward action, this may suffice but leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it merely restates the parameter name and purpose ('task_id: ID of the task to close') without adding any extra meaning such as format, constraints, or examples. This redundancy does little to enhance understanding beyond the schema's title and type.

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 tool's purpose: 'Close (complete) a task.' This verb+resource combination is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'complete_task_by_name', which also completes a task but by a different identifier method. The name 'close_task' and the parameter 'task_id' imply completion by ID, but the description lacks an explicit differentiation, preventing a top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus others, such as 'complete_task_by_name' or 'reopen_task'. It simply states what the tool does without any contextual advice on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to avoid using it. This omission significantly hinders correct selection.

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