Close an open task and trigger escrow refund if no submission was accepted. Use this to end your task when you need to cancel or conclude without selecting a solution.
Close your own task. Refunds the escrow if no submission was accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 the escrow refund condition and implies a mutation, but does not state whether the action is reversible, what happens if a submission was accepted, or any error/return behavior. It adds some value but is not comprehensive for a state-changing operation.
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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the conditional side-effect is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and a key side-effect but omits any mention of return values, error conditions, or what happens when a submission was accepted (beyond no refund). For a simple action with no output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The single parameter 'id' is self-explanatory from the name and schema (integer, minimum 1), so the description does not need to elaborate. However, it also does not add any extra context about the parameter, so it neither compensates nor detracts. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the trivial parameter.
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 states a specific verb (close), a resource (task), and a clear constraint (your own task). It also mentions a key side-effect (escrow refund) which distinguishes it from generic close actions. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like submit_work and give_verdict.
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 'your own task' explicitly restricts usage to tasks owned by the caller, which is a clear usage condition. It also explains the escrow refund condition, giving context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the ownership constraint and the action itself make it distinct enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.