close_run

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden but only repeats the action without explaining side effects. It does not state whether closing is irreversible, whether it impacts result submission, or what state the run transitions into.

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 unnecessary words. It is concise but borders on merely restating the tool name, and it lacks the extra detail that would make the conciseness genuinely informative.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, the description lacks important context about the consequences of closing a run. Since there are no annotations to convey safety or side effects, the description alone is too thin for confident use beyond the most obvious 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%, so the sole parameter run_id is already documented as 'Test run ID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 a specific verb ('close') and resource ('a test run'), which conveys the essential operation. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_run or delete_run, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the wording alone.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use close_run versus update_run or delete_run. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the run needing to be active, or whether closing has finality implications that should make the agent prefer another tool.

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