close_hr_case

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=true, which are consistent with closing a case. The description adds the precondition 'WRITE_ENABLED=true', but does not disclose other behavioral effects (e.g., status changes, notifications). More context would improve 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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key requirement.

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?

For a relatively simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context (prerequisite). It could be improved by mentioning expected return values or behavior on failure, but it is sufficiently complete for standard use.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly confirming that 'close_notes' are resolution notes. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Close'), the resource ('HR case'), and additional context ('with resolution notes, requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like update_hr_case or delete_record.

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 mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use if case already closed). Usage is implied but not explicit.

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