close_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only mentions that the book becomes hidden and that only the primary author can perform the action. It does not disclose whether closing is permanent or reversible, what happens to existing readers/royalties, or any other side effects of the operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core verb, resource, effect, and permission are packed efficiently.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It lacks clarification of the slug parameter, reversibility, return behavior, and how it differs from the closely related sibling tools unpublish_book and retire_book.

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 schema has one parameter (slug) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. The meaning of 'slug' may be inferable, but the description adds no explicit semantic value beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Close a book completely') and its observable effect ('hidden from the store'), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like unpublish_book or retire_book, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose close_book over unpublish_book or retire_book, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned. The only constraint, 'primary author only', is a permission note rather than a decision rule.

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