close_room

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does reveal the main effect (ending the discussion) plus the prerequisite and default path behavior. However, it doesn't say whether closing is irreversible, how it affects room_status or pending messages, or what response the caller should expect.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite/default follow naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus schema covers the essential calling sequence and the optional path behavior. It could be more complete about post-close state changes, but nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter context by revealing that spec_path defaults to the path reported by room_status. This is information not present in the input schema and directly affects how an agent should invoke the tool with zero arguments.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'End' plus resource 'discussion', clearly distinguishing close_room from siblings like post, read_room, and wait_for_message. It also frames the tool's role as the terminal action after a plan is written, which leaves no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 description gives an explicit precondition: write the agreed plan to the spec file named in room_status first, then call close_room. It doesn't explicitly name write_spec or list when-not-to-use cases, but the sequencing is unambiguous and actionable.

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