close_agent_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: the writeback is atomic and any forbidden write aborts the whole commit. It still does not say what counts as 'forbidden', what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns on success/failure.

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 tightly packed sentences with no waste; the transactional nature and the effect list are both front-loaded, and the atomicity caveat ends the description on the operative constraint.

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 multi-write mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the effect set and the all-or-nothing failure semantics well. It falls short only on parameter formats and on disambiguating itself from the dry-run and repo-level close siblings.

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?

With 0% schema coverage over 8 params, the description must carry the burden. It maps six params to concepts (task log entry, hot update, gotcha, discoveries, escalations, rewrites), but leaves agent_id and project unmentioned and gives no format, type, or ordering detail for any of them.

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 ('Transactional end-of-task writeback for an agent') and enumerates the concrete effects (appends task log, updates hot, writes gotchas, publishes discoveries/escalations, creates rewrites). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as agent_dry_run_close_task, dry_run_close_repo_task, or close_repo_task, so an agent must infer which close variant to call.

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 'end-of-task writeback' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of the obvious alternate (agent_dry_run_close_task / agent_abandon_task). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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