close_hr_case

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is useful operational context, but doesn't elaborate on irreversibility, side effects (despite openWorldHint=true), or return behavior. No contradiction with annotations, but limited additional behavioral disclosure.

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: 'Close an HR case with resolution notes (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true).' It conveys the verb, resource, input, and a critical prerequisite with no filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with rich annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, idempotency, openWorld) and full schema coverage, the description and annotations together provide a solid operational picture. The WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite is a valuable addition. The only omission is return value/confirmation behavior, which is minor given the simple close action and lack of an output schema.

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 documented. The description's 'with resolution notes' merely reiterates the close_notes parameter without adding format, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 applies.

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' with the explicit resource 'HR case', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like close_incident, close_change_request, and update_hr_case. The 'with resolution notes' phrase adds meaningful specificity about the tool's primary function, making it unambiguous.

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 the tool is for closing HR cases with resolution notes, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives apply (e.g., update_hr_case for non-closing modifications, close_csm_case for CSM cases). An agent relies primarily on the tool name and sibling context rather than explicit direction.

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