Close Issue

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state by executing a transition, that it targets 'done' status, that resolution must be valid for the issue type, and that it returns the transitions available in the closed status. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 compact: two sentences that lead with the core action and resolution constraint, then state the return value. Every sentence carries needed information without repetition or filler.

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?

The definition covers the operation, resolution-selection process, and return value, which is strong for a focused tool with a full schema and output schema. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what happens if no 'done' transition is available, but this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic value for resolution_id by explaining it must be allowed by the issue's type and how to discover the allowed values via issue_get and queue_get_metadata. It does not add detail for fields or comment, but the schema already describes those clearly.

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 tool's specific action: closing a Yandex Tracker issue by finding and executing a transition to a 'done' status. It names the exact resource and operation, and the 'finds a transition' detail helps distinguish it from a generic transition tool like issue_execute_transition.

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 gives explicit procedural guidance: read the issue type, call queue_get_metadata, then provide a resolution allowed by that type. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like issue_execute_transition or state when not to use this tool, but the context and specialized purpose make the intended use clear.

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