close_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the state change (done/closed) but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects on related items, or whether it is distinct from other status updates. This is minimal beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a very brief description, the tool lacks context for correct invocation. The ambiguity with sibling tools like set_status and advance_status is unresolved, and the exact meaning of 'done/closed' is not expanded. The description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably choose this tool.

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 schema provides only 'item_id' with the description 'item_id parameter', which is tautological. The tool description does not explain the parameter meaning, how to obtain it, or any constraints. Despite high schema coverage, the descriptions add no real semantic value.

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 'Mark item as done/closed' clearly states the action (mark) and resource (item), and clarifies the meaning of 'close' as done/closed. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_status, advance_status, or revert_status, which also modify status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as set_status or advance_status. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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