answer_request

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

Beyond the lone destructiveHint=false annotation, the description discloses that no music is changed, that text is displayed under the request, and that an id which is not an open request is refused with no changes. That is meaningful side-effect and failure-mode context. It stops short of describing authorization needs or whether the close is reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description is four tight sentences with zero waste. The core action and scope come first, followed by outcome semantics, text constraint, sibling alternatives, and failure behavior in a logical order.

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 three-parameter, non-destructive close operation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, both outcome modes, the text requirement, the id failure mode, and the correct sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all three parameters, including the outcome enum and the 200-character text limit. The description largely restates that same information rather than adding new format, source, or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Closes a request typed in the Moontide page' — and immediately scopes it with 'without changing the music'. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from set_code, edit_code, and restore_version, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It states exactly when to use each outcome: 'answered when the request was answered in words, declined when it will not or cannot be done.' It also names the alternatives for change-based answers — set_code, edit_code, and restore_version with 'answering' — providing explicit when-not guidance.

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