close_csm_case

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, which is useful, but it does not disclose consequences such as the case being irreversibly moved to a closed state or any side effects. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds minimal context beyond the requirement.

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 immediately states the action and object, followed by the key permission requirement. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise.

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 three-parameter tool, the description is adequate but missing context about the closing workflow—it doesn't explain that closing is typically a terminal action or what response the agent should expect. The lack of an output schema means the return value is unspecified, and the description does not clarify whether the tool returns the closed case or a simple success indicator. Still, the essential purpose and required permission are covered, earning a moderate score.

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 each parameter already documented with a concise description. The description's phrase 'with resolution details' only reinforces the importance of resolution_notes but adds no new syntax, format, or value constraints beyond the schema. 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 a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('CSM case') with the qualifier 'with resolution details', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_csm_case, get_csm_case, and update_csm_case. It also names the permission prerequisite, although that's not purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_csm_case or close_incident. It does not state that closing is a final action or that it should be used after resolution is complete. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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