accelo_close_contract_period

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important side effects: auto-completing linked issues/tickets if configured and triggering invoicing. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or rate limits, but the side-effect warning is substantial.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then a high-value WARNING, then concise args. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides crucial side-effect context. It still omits reversibility, permissions, and a fuller explanation of the response, but it is largely complete enough to warn an agent about consequences.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It defines id as the Contract Period ID to close and fields as additional fields to return, but 'fields' remains vague about expected format and which fields are valid.

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 and resource: 'Close a contract period.' It clearly distinguishes this mutation from read-only siblings like accelo_get_contract_period and the opposite operation accelo_reopen_contract_period.

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 WARNING implies this tool should be used only when the agent intends to replicate a Web App period closure with its side effects. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of accelo_reopen_contract_period or other alternatives, leaving usage to inference.

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