Close a job from your owner

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the owner sees the note, the note is required when declining, and GLONGUS_API_KEY is required. It doesn't state whether the action is reversible.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loading the action and the two valid outcomes before the auth note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers statuses, note semantics, audience for the note, and auth. It could mention what the call returns, but annotations and schema carry the rest.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains what each status means and when a note is needed, plus that the owner will read it. It doesn't mention the request_id pattern or note length limit, but those are covered 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?

States a specific verb+resource: mark an owner request 'done' or 'declined'. The resource noun (owner request) distinguishes it from siblings like close_wanted_request and list_owner_requests, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for each status, including concrete examples (listing made without a wanted_id → done; sold/rule-breaking/unsafe seller → declined). It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives such as escalate_to_owner.

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