close_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is destructive and requires human approval, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not explain whether this creates a pending action or how the approval process works, which would be richer 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 that there are 3 straightforward parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and approval requirement, but does not detail the approval workflow or prerequisites (e.g., issue must be open). For a tool with no annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain what 'owner', 'repo', or 'issue_number' mean, though 'closure of an issue' implies issue_number identifies the issue. The parameter semantics are largely left to the schema, which only provides names and types.

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 states the tool's purpose: to request closure of an issue. It explicitly uses the verb 'request' and the resource 'issue', distinguishing it from sibling tools like reopen_issue and create_issue. The addition of 'destructive action' also signals the nature of the operation.

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 when an issue needs to be closed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reopen_issue or direct issue updates. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, though the approval requirement hints at a specific workflow.

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