itsm_close_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose a significant side effect (ProofLink seal trigger), but it does not mention other important behaviors such as idempotency, permissions required, or whether the action is reversible. The single side effect disclosure is useful but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loads the primary action, and includes the key side effect. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context: it states the action, the resolution requirement, and a side effect. It does not elaborate on edge cases (e.g., already-closed tickets) but covers the essentials for a straightforward action tool.

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%, but the schema descriptions are minimal ('Ticket ID to close' and 'Resolution description'). The description adds a phrase 'with a resolution note' which reinforces the 'resolution' parameter, but it does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the primary action ('Close and resolve an ITSM ticket') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling ITSM tools like get/create/list. It also adds a unique side effect ('Triggers ProofLink seal'), further clarifying its purpose.

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 description implies the tool is for closing/resolving tickets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'Use this only when the ticket is ready for closure'). There is no mention of when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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