close_incident

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation, so the description adds extra context by specifying the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement and the precondition that the incident must be resolved. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it omits details about side effects or reversibility.

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 verb and object, with a useful parenthetical for the permission requirement. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and precondition.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what it does, when it can be used (resolved incident), and a system-level requirement. It does not explain return values, but since annotations and schema are already rich, this is sufficient. Minor gap is lack of detail on what 'closing' implies beyond the annotations.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage on the single parameter sys_id, so the description need not elaborate. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's clarity. 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 uses a specific verb ('Close') and a specific resource ('incident'), and further qualifies it as 'resolved incident', which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like resolve_incident or update_incident. The parenthetical about WRITE_ENABLED adds a clear precondition, making the purpose 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: only for incidents that have been resolved. It also identifies a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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