Bytebase: close a plan or its review issue

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

With no annotations, this description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive outcomes (deletes a draft, cancels an issue), notes the UI equivalence, and explains the refusal condition. This exceeds the minimum and leaves no important behavioral ambiguity.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by necessary behavioral nuance. Every sentence contributes critical information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior, conditional outcomes, and refusal state. It could be more complete by stating what the caller should expect on success or on refusal (e.g., return values), but the core context needed to call it correctly is present.

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 single parameter is already fully described in the schema with a concrete example ('projects/my-project/plans/123'), so the description adds no extra meaning. There are no enums or nested objects requiring elaboration; the schema alone provides sufficient semantic coverage.

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 states a clear, specific action: cancel a change before it runs, and distinguishes the two different objects (draft plan vs. review issue) it affects. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it misses the strongest form of sibling differentiation, but the semantics are unambiguous against tools like create_plan, update_plan, or submit_plan_for_review.

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 clear context for when to invoke the tool: before a rollout, with distinct handling for draft vs. submitted plans. It also gives an explicit exclusion (refuses when an active rollout exists) and directs the caller to the UI for that case, but it does not name any alternative MCP tool, which prevents a 5.

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