close_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('close') but fails to explain what this entails—whether it's a reversible state change, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as the agent cannot assess risks or outcomes beyond the basic verb.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an agent's quick comprehension.

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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies state, this leaves the agent underinformed about execution and outcomes.

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, with 'run_id' clearly documented. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying the tool acts on a run, which is minimal value. However, with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong, and the description doesn't detract, earning a score slightly above the minimum viable.

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 run' clearly states the action (close) and resource (test run), but it's vague about what 'close' means operationally (e.g., marking as completed, archiving, or stopping execution). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_run' or 'update_run' by implying a state change rather than removal or modification, but lacks specificity on the exact effect.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_run' or 'update_run', nor does it mention prerequisites like run status or permissions. The description implies usage for ending a run, but offers no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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