chat_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two side effects: history is preserved and a running turn is cancelled. However, it doesn't disclose whether closing is reversible, whether subsequent messages will fail, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core action and the two most important side effects. There is no filler, and the content is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral outcome but leaves gaps: no statement about reopening, error conditions, or the effect on subsequent chat calls. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that these omissions are moderate.

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 description does not discuss chat_session_id at all. While the parameter name is self-descriptive, the description provides no guidance on how to obtain or validate the session id, leaving the agent to infer it from context.

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?

States a clear imperative verb and resource: mark a chat closed. The detail that history is kept and a running turn is cancelled helps distinguish it from other chat lifecycle tools like chat_start and chat_send, though it does not explicitly name a 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies closing is for ending a chat, but it doesn't contrast with alternatives like chat_poll or chat_list or state conditions under which closing should be avoided.

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