chat_close

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral consequences. It does state 'History is KEPT' which indicates a non-destructive action, but it fails to explain what 'closed' means functionally (e.g., whether further messages are blocked, if the session can be reopened, or if any other state changes occur). This leaves meaningful gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short clauses that deliver the core purpose and an important behavioral guarantee. There is no redundant or filler content, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the immediate action. However, it lacks broader context such as what happens after closing (e.g., can the chat be reopened, are messages still viewable?, what is the effect on other tools like chat_send) and whether the operation is reversible. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 0% description coverage and the sole parameter, chat_session_id, is merely named. The description provides no additional meaning, such as how to obtain the ID, whether it must be an existing session, or any validation constraints. It adds no value beyond the parameter name, which is a significant shortfall given low schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Mark a chat closed' and the resource ('a chat'), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like chat_start and chat_send, and the added note 'History is KEPT' clarifies that closing is non-destructive.

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 implies use when you want to close a chat session, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like chat_close are the only close action for chats, so usage is inferred rather than explicitly stated.

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