Close contest betting

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the state transition (bets no longer accepted) but says nothing about whether existing bets/funds are preserved, reversed, or locked pending payout — a meaningful gap for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the trailing clause earning its place by spelling out the observable effect. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 2-param mutation with annotations covering safety hints and no output schema, the essential call information is present. Missing are preconditions (valid contest state), whether existing bets are retained for settlement, and error behavior if betting is already closed.

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% and both parameters (channel, contestId) are fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no format or defaulting detail beyond 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 verb and resource ('Close betting on a running contest') plus the resulting state ('no new bets are accepted'), which separates it from contests_draw_winner and contests_refund. It implies the sequencing rather than naming siblings outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause 'before picking a winner' implies the correct moment to invoke it, which is real guidance. It does not name contests_draw_winner, contests_refund, or state prerequisites (e.g. contest must be open with bets placed), so usage is only implied.

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