calibrated_consult_close

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computed return content (the 'mirror' metrics) and the optional prediction contract, which is useful, but says nothing about mutation semantics, permissions, idempotency, or whether the consult must still be open. Adequate but incomplete for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action and result before the parameter and sequencing notes. Every clause carries information; the heavy caps emphasis is slightly noisy but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover everything. It does cover purpose, the returned 'mirror', and workflow placement, but omits behavioral traits (auth, idempotency, error/edge conditions) and several parameter meanings, leaving real gaps.

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% with 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains followed_council ('did you accept the council position') and prediction (optional, decision_card contract), but leaves consult_id, posterior_call, posterior_confidence, and posterior_abstain undocumented in both schema and text.

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: records YOUR position after the council answer and produces a 'mirror' with concrete sub-metrics (position shift, confidence inflation, suppression of 'I don't know'). Clearly differentiated from the open/resolve siblings by its 'after the council response' placement.

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?

Explicitly places itself in the workflow: 'Идёт после calibrated_consult_open; закрой исход позже через calibrated_consult_resolve', naming the preceding and succeeding siblings. No explicit when-not condition, but the sequencing leaves little ambiguity.

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