close_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the proposal is marked as refused or expired, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 conveys the essential purpose and key constraint ('sans conversion') efficiently.

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 close operation, the description provides the core semantics but omits workflow context (e.g., whether the proposal must be in a certain state before closing). It is minimally viable but lacks details that would help the agent decide when closing is appropriate.

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%, so each parameter (id, note, status) is already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only reinforcing that status corresponds to refusal or expiry, which is already in 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 uses a specific verb ('Clôturer') with a clear resource ('un devis') and specifies the exact outcomes: 'marquer comme refusé ou expiré sans conversion'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_proposal_to_order and validate_proposal.

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 'sans conversion' implies an alternative action (conversion to order) and indicates this tool is for closing without converting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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