close_feedback

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description goes beyond it by explaining exactly what happens: status is set to 'closed', resolution text is optionally added, and entries are moved from FEEDBACK.md to FEEDBACK_ARCHIVE.md. This adds valuable behavioral context (file movement) that annotations do not provide, and it does not contradict the destructive hint.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, the side effect is explained in the second sentence, and the usage instruction is in the third. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, the automatic file movement, how to read archived entries, and when to use it. Nothing that an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both id and resolution are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only a minor repetition of 'optionally adds resolution text,' which is already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Close'), the resource ('feedback entry'), and the key behavior (sets status to 'closed', optional resolution). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like list_feedback by explaining the archive movement, so an agent can immediately understand its role without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to mark feedback items as resolved after fixing them,' which provides a clear when-to-use directive. It also mentions the reading alternative (list_feedback archived:true), fulfilling the requirement for mentioning alternatives. There is no misleading guidance.

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