ddflow_bug_invalid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that this never counts as a fix, that the reason is mandatory, that evidence should be a probe/test, and the exact refusal behavior with exit code 3 for unknown or already-closed bugs. That is richer behavioral context than most annotated definitions provide.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core semantic ('FALSE finding, never a fix') before the requirements and error conditions. No filler.

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 state-mutating close operation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the required evidence, the no-fix bookkeeping, the exit-3 failure modes, and the sibling alternative. Nothing material is left unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description only adds emphasis on the reason/evidence pairing for the false-finding case, without new syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Close a bug as a FALSE finding') and immediately clarifies the semantic consequence ('nothing was broken, so nothing was fixed'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ddflow_bug_fixed by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the alternative ('a real bug is closed with `ddflow_bug_fixed` instead'), which is the key routing decision. It also names the failure conditions ('Refused (exit 3) for an unknown id or a bug already closed'), covering when the call will not succeed.

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