bort_task_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful side effect ('проставляет closed_at'), which is real behavioral value for a mutation, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or error behavior on an already-closed or nonexistent task.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and appends the side effect. Every clause earns its place, though the two inline glosses ('выполнено', 'отменено') are mildly redundant with the English tokens.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone. It covers the action, the outcome vocabulary, and the closed_at write, but omits preconditions, failure modes, and return behavior — adequate but noticeably thin for a mutation tool.

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% and the schema gives no enum for outcome, only a default of 'done'. The description compensates by defining both legal outcome values and their meanings, which is genuinely additive. However, task_id — the required parameter — gets no explanation at all.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Закрыть задачу' (close a task), and enumerates the two outcome values with glosses. An agent can distinguish this from bort_task_update and bort_task_create, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this instead of bort_task_update with a status field, whether the task must be open first, or what happens on re-closing. The outcome semantics are described, but the routing decision against siblings is left entirely to inference.

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