Close Issue

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

The description clearly states the tool executes a closure transition and returns the list of transitions available on the closed issue. It also explains the automatic selection of the 'done' transition. The readOnlyHint annotation (false) matches the fact that this is a mutation, and the description adds enough detail about the side effects.

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 and well-structured. It states the purpose, highlights the important prerequisite steps, and specifies the return value in two short sentences. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 convenience wrapper, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what the agent must do first, and what the tool returns. It also implicitly clarifies why this tool exists relative to more manual alternatives. No important context is missing.

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 description adds guidance on how to obtain a valid resolution_id (by calling queue_get_metadata and matching the issue type), but the schema description for resolution_id instead references the get_resolutions tool, creating a contradiction. The other parameters are not described in the description, but the schema already covers them, so the description adds limited value and introduces ambiguity.

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 closes a Yandex Tracker issue with a resolution, and explicitly labels it as a convenience tool that automatically finds the correct transition. This distinguishes it from the more general issue_execute_transition sibling.

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 explicit preconditions: it instructs the agent to call issue_get and queue_get_metadata before closing, and explains why (to retrieve the issue type and valid resolutions). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for custom transitions, but the convenience framing implies it is the simplified path.

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