abandon_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it works on 'any open state' and explains the future behavior with start_application. It does not explicitly mention reversibility or permissions, but the mention of a 'fresh session' implies a non-permanent closure. This is adequate for a simple state-transition tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only relevant behavior. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 description explains the main operation and one key follow-up behavior, which is useful for a simple tool with an output schema. However, it omits any explanation of the parameters and does not cover potential side effects beyond the start_application implication. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding to use the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It references 'an application' which implies application_id identifies which application, but it provides no details about how to find application_id or what the optional 'reason' parameter is for. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 action: 'Close an application you decided not to pursue (any open state).' It uses a specific verb ('Close') and identifies the resource ('application'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like discard_match by focusing on the application lifecycle rather than match-level actions.

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 use the tool: when you have decided not to pursue an open application. It also explains that a later start_application for the same match opens a fresh session, which clarifies the state after abandoning. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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