close_change_request

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the operational requirement 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as state transitions or irreversibility.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes the key requirement, and has no wasted words. It communicates the essential information efficiently.

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 simple mutation tool with full annotations and complete parameter schema, the description covers the core action and a prerequisite. It lacks output schema or error handling details, but for a straightforward close operation, this is reasonably complete.

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%, with all three parameters (sys_id, close_code, close_notes) already described. The description merely mentions close code and notes without adding new detail, so it does not add significant value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Close' targeting the 'change request' resource, with close code and notes as key parameters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_incident, close_hr_case, and update_change_request.

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 closing change requests and mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_change_request or state when closing is appropriate. The guidance is present but not explicit.

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