Close a follow-up by recording its resolution status (answered, declined, resolved) with a required note. Optionally attach a captured user response via capture_id for context.
关闭一条回访（answered 回访完成 / declined 用户不再跟进 / resolved 回路以其他方式关闭，含方案被取代或过时）；note 必填且须具体。可选 capture_id 把本轮用户回答的原话 capture 绑到回访上（须已存在于 ledger）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| note | Yes | ||
| capture_id | No | ||
| resolution | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the closure action, requires a specific note, and states the ledger-existence precondition for capture_id, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens after closure.
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?
A single dense sentence packs the operation, enum meanings, field requirements, and an optional binding rule without filler. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly dense due to multiple clauses packed together.
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?
Input semantics are well covered, including required fields and preconditions. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return behavior and broader operational consequences, which is a noticeable gap for a state-changing 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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines the resolution enum semantics, clarifies that note must be specific, and explains capture_id binds an existing ledger capture. Only the id parameter is left unexplained, which is acceptable given its obvious role.
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 precise verb and resource: '关闭一条回访' (close a follow-up), and explains the distinct meanings of the three resolution values: answered, declined, and resolved. This clearly separates the tool from siblings like personal_add_followup and personal_finalize_capture.
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?
Provides explicit conditions for each resolution choice ('answered 回访完成 / declined 用户不再跟进 / resolved ...'), so an agent knows which resolution to select in which scenario. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.