workflow_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that force closes from non-stabilize phases and is 'logged as forced', but it does not describe the effects of closing (e.g., finality, impact on items, reversibility). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 compact and directly states the purpose followed by parameter explanations. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has an output schema, so return details are handled. The description covers the normal usage context and the force option, but it omits broader context such as prerequisites, side effects, or what closing entails. Given no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: reason, force, and project_dir with its default. This is a clear addition over the raw 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 clear verb 'Close' and resource 'workflow', and notes the normal context 'from stabilize phase'. The action is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like workflow_transition.

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?

Mentions 'normally from stabilize phase' and the force parameter for non-stabilize phases, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives such as workflow_transition.

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