close_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'mutation closeCase' without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the case, offering no value beyond the tool's name.

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 very brief and front-loaded with 'Cases · mutation closeCase', then provides a useful example. It could be more structured, but every word 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 and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain field semantics, required versus optional fields, the effect of closing, or the response format, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 schema describes only 'input' as GraphQL: CloseCaseInput!, but the example expands on this by listing caseId, closeCode, and reason fields, adding practical meaning beyond the schema. This compensates well for the schema's opaqueness.

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 the action as 'mutation closeCase' and provides an example with caseId, making it clear this tool closes a case. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_case, though it could be more explicit with plain language.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_case or close_incident. The example variables imply usage for closing a case, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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