close_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses that nothing is deleted, that rows remain for auditability, that spreadsheet formulas stay aligned, and that the permanent trade-log is untouched. It also reveals the refusal condition and the force escape hatch — the sort of state-mutation behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information (what is marked, what is preserved, what is untouched, when it refuses), with the action front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Side effects on the working vs. permanent spreadsheets and the guard condition are all covered, which is what matters for a state-mutating tool. The only minor gap is the return value/confirmation shape, but with no output schema that is a low-priority omission.

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% and both parameters are already documented (force with a rug example, planId). The description references the force override and the Status condition but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Close out a finished plan') and enumerates exactly what changes ('marks its Active Positions row and all its Creator Activity rows as CLOSED in the working spreadsheet'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from write-oriented siblings like update_active_position or execute_sell.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Refuses unless the plan's formula-computed Status reads Closed') and the override path ('unless force is set'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not name an alternative tool for the force/rug scenario, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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