close_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the resulting state (closed) and its meaning, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or the exact impact on the order lifecycle. This is minimal for a state-changing operation.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and state the key behavioral outcome. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description could still provide more context about the order lifecycle, such as the difference from cancel/delete, or any prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent trying to decide between close_order and sibling mutations.

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 already documents the only parameter 'id' with the description 'Order ID to close', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Close') and resource ('an open order'), and adds the semantic meaning that a closed order indicates no further work is required. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cancel_order or open_order, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 implies usage for open orders that need no more work, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_order, delete_order, or update_order. There are no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use instructions.

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