goldhold_plan_close

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the main behavioral consequence: it writes three persistent artifacts. It does not address reversibility, idempotency, or return format, so some behavioral burden remains.

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?

One terse sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by a compact artifact list. No wasted words.

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 core operation is clear, but the tool lacks annotations and an output schema, and the description does not explain required parameter values, prerequisites, or return behavior. With four parameters and only 25% schema coverage, this is not enough for reliable invocation.

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 25% (one property has a description), and the tool description mentions none of the four parameters. The agent is left to infer the meaning of plan_slug, summary, and followups, and the valid range of outcome is only partially hinted 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 operation ('Close a plan') and names concrete artifacts ('final checkpoint, outcome fact, and closed manifest'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic-close and task-completion siblings. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or alternative selection guidance is given. 'Close a plan' only implies finalization, and near-siblings like goldhold_close and goldhold_task_complete are not disambiguated.

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