close_intervention

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

The description adds an authorization requirement, which is not present in the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or the resulting intervention state. Annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency, but the description contributes only the auth caveat.

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 short and to the point, with the action front-loaded and the authorization warning as a distinct, useful sentence. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.

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?

Output schema and input schema provide parameter and return coverage, and annotations cover safety traits. Still, the description lacks usage context, side-effect information, and any note about what happens after closing, leaving an agent with an incomplete picture for a state-changing operation.

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 parameters are already documented with their types and descriptions. The description simply echoes 'outcome notes' without adding requiredness, format, or relationship to the intervention_id parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('close') and a clear resource ('intervention'), and adds 'outcome notes' as the key payload. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like get_intervention_status and from assign_intervention.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, whether it should follow assign_intervention, or what conditions must be met before closing. The authorization warning is a prerequisite, but not enough to orient an agent on when this tool is appropriate.

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