close_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Close a test plan' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated runs/cases, or what the outcome looks like. For a destructive-sounding tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. For such a simple tool, this brevity is appropriate and effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like idempotency, error conditions, or return values. For a 'close' operation in a test management context, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'plan_id' parameter is documented as 'Plan ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain where to find the plan_id, format constraints, or validation rules. This meets minimum viability but offers no extra semantic value.

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 'Close a test plan' clearly states the verb ('close') and resource ('test plan'), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'close_run' or explain what 'closing' means in this context (e.g., marking as completed vs. archiving). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the plan must be open), exclusions (e.g., cannot close if active runs exist), or related tools like 'update_plan' for status changes. With many sibling tools for managing plans, this omission leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.

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