Phone Panel Close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says what closing actually does — whether it discards pending answers, ends an exam prematurely, is idempotent, or errors on an invalid/already-closed panel_id. Only the presence of an output schema spares it from explaining return values.

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 verb first and zero padding. It is efficiently written, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and three distinct target types ('panel, question or exam'), the description omits every consequential detail — especially what closing a question or exam implies. Output schema covers returns, but input and side-effect context remain missing.

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 0% and the single required parameter (panel_id) is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no clue where the id comes from (presumably phone_panel_show) or what format it takes.

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 specific verb ('Close') and resource ('panel, question or exam on the phone'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It implicitly contrasts with phone_panel_show but never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 you call it on an open panel, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of phone_panel_show as the counterpart, and no prerequisites (e.g., does panel_id need to be active?).

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