close_change

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter names, but does not explain side effects (e.g., status change), reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to the change record. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. It avoids fluff, though it could include more behavioral context without becoming overly long.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and a simple schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the closing workflow, expected outcomes, or error conditions. While an output schema exists (not shown), the description still leaves key contextual details missing for a mutation operation.

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?

The Args section simply restates parameter names with minimal explanations (e.g., 'change_id: The change ID'), adding little beyond the schema. There is no elaboration on expected formats, semantics, or relationships, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Close a change with a result explanation.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_change or delete_change, and the phrase 'result explanation' adds meaningful scope beyond just the verb.

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 usage context is implied: it is used to close a change with an explanation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_change or delete_change, nor any mention of prerequisites or lifecycle position. The description fails to provide exclusions or alternatives.

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