close_bug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation (closing a bug) and that it wraps another tool, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or what happens to the bug after closing. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but leaves important behavioral details unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the essential information: what the tool does and its relationship to another tool. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining it's a wrapper for update_bug, which provides important context. However, it doesn't mention what the tool returns or error handling. Given the complexity (simple wrapper) and good sibling tool context, it's mostly complete but could benefit from return value information.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 specific action ('close a bug') and resource ('bug'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'update_bug' by noting it's a convenience wrapper for that tool with status=closed. This provides clear differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('close a bug') versus alternatives by naming the alternative ('update_bug') and specifying the condition under which this wrapper should be used (when you want to set status=closed). This provides perfect guidance on tool selection.

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