brc_close_quote

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains the two-step flow, the need for user confirmation, and the return data (confirmation_required and preview). However, it does not specify the final response format, error behavior, or whether the operation is reversible (though brc_reopen_quote exists in siblings).

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses clear, step-by-step language. It is relatively concise for the complexity of the two-step flow, though the final sentence 'Passing preflight is not confirmation' could be integrated earlier for better flow.

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 description covers the two-step flow well but lacks details on the success response after the second call. Without an output schema, the agent is left uncertain about the result (e.g., status, errors). Also, no mention of authorization requirements or side effects. Given the tool's mutating nature and complexity, more detail is expected.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds significant workflow context for confirmWrite, explaining its role in the two-step confirmation process. This goes beyond basic schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states it closes a BRC quote, uses specific verb+resource. The description of the two-step workflow distinguishes it from other quote operations, and the sibling list includes brc_reopen_quote, brc_create_quote, etc., making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit instructions for the two-step invocation: first call without confirmWrite returns a preview, then retry with confirmWrite only after user confirmation. It also warns that passing preflight is not confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives like brc_reopen_quote.

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