council_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect: 'Records are KEPT ... nothing is deleted,' clarifying the tool is non-destructive to data. It also mentions the ordering requirement with council_score. Missing are details like reversibility or required permissions, but the provided context is valuable.

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 three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the action, note data retention, and give a prerequisite. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter close operation, the description covers the purpose, side effects (nothing deleted), and a critical prerequisite. It does not explain the return value or post-close state, but these are less essential given the straightforward nature of the tool and the presence of sibling tools for other operations.

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 a single required parameter, council_id, with no description. The tool description does not explicitly describe the parameter, but 'Mark a council closed' makes its role obvious (the council to close). Since the parameter is simple and self-explanatory, this meets the minimum but adds little extra semantic meaning 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a council closed.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like council_start (begin a council) and council_score (score seats). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides an explicit precondition: 'Score the seats with council_score FIRST if you haven't.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool yet and names the specific sibling tool to use first, giving clear sequencing and context.

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