close-change-request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the key behavior: the change request is closed and not applied. It does not mention side effects like whether approvals or proposed changes are discarded or whether the action is reversible, but the core action is clearly disclosed.

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 wasted words. It states the action and the critical non-action in two short phrases, earning every word.

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, side-effect-indicating tool, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially with the guidance that it does not apply the change. Some deeper context about post-close state could be added, but it is not essential for correct invocation.

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 100%: the only parameter, changeRequestId, is already described as 'The identifier of the Change Request.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Closes') with a clear resource ('the Change Request') and adds a distinctive qualifier ('without applying it') that differentiates it from apply-change-request. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many change-request-related siblings.

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 phrase 'without applying it' clearly signals the contrast with apply-change-request, implying this tool is for closing rather than applying a change. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of update-change-request or other alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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