tomticket_close_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn 'ATENCAO: altera producao' and explains the timer-stopping effect, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or behavior if no open status exists. The warning is useful but thin.

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 extremely compact: a production-change warning followed by a clear action-and-effect statement. There is no filler, and the warning is appropriately front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the action, the side effect, and the business purpose. It lacks preconditions or post-conditions, but it is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The single parameter ticket_id is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema 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 what the tool does: 'Encerra o status aberto do chamado' (closes the ticket's open status) and explains the purpose with '(para o cronometro)' (stops the timer). It is specific enough to distinguish the action from finish_ticket or start_status, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like tomticket_start_status or tomticket_finish_ticket, and no preconditions such as requiring an open status to exist. The usage context is only implied by the action described.

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