Close GitHub Issue with Resolution Entry

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully discloses that two side effects occur (issue closure plus journal entry creation). However, it says nothing about the remote write being permanent, whether a comment is posted before closing, the optional Kanban move, or what happens if the issue is already closed — real behavioral gaps for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the secondary effect second; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 9 parameters, an output schema, and 89% schema description coverage, the description only needs to convey the essential dual effect, which it does. The remaining gaps (Kanban move, comment posting, test DB flag) are all covered by schema field descriptions, so an agent can still call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 89%, so nearly every parameter (repo/owner auto-detect, comment, move_to_done, project_number, resolution_notes) is already documented in the schema. The phrase 'documenting the resolution' loosely maps to resolution_notes, but the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 two specific verb+resource pairs — 'Close a GitHub issue' and 'create a journal entry' — which precisely captures the compound nature of the tool and separates it from plain issue-closing or plain entry-creation siblings. It does not name the closest siblings (create_github_issue_with_entry, get_github_issue), so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 implies the use case (close an issue while recording the resolution in the journal) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against calling create_entry and an issue-close tool separately. Usage must be inferred from the compound phrasing.

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