close_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the operation changes status to 'closed' and optionally adds resolution text. However, it doesn't mention whether the action is reversible, whether existing resolution text is overwritten, or what the operation returns, which would be useful for a mutating tool.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and effect are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and no nested objects, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It explains the state change and the optional resolution field. The only minor gap is the lack of return-value or success-indication information, but the tool's simplicity minimizes that need.

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 the schema already documents both 'id' and 'resolution' adequately. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that resolution text is optional, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb, 'close', a specific resource, 'feedback entry', and the concrete outcome, 'sets status to closed'. It also distinguishes this from the sibling list_feedback (reading) and report_tool_feedback (creating/opening feedback) by focusing on resolving existing entries.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to mark feedback items as resolved after fixing them.' It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately for closing/resolving feedback.

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