close_lot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that lots are normally auto-closed at zero quantity and that this tool is for edge cases/manual cleanup. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., does closing affect gain calc, reconciliation, or related splits) or whether closure is reversible.

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 well-organized with a concise intro, usage section, and note. Every sentence earns its place, explaining the purpose and the automatic behavior context without padding. No waste.

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 a single parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the tool is relatively simple. The description covers when to use, what happens automatically, and the argument format. It could add post-condition details (what changes after close) but is reasonably complete for a simple mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('Lot GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)'). The description repeats the same guidance ('8+ char prefix') without adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the single parameter.

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 clearly states 'Mark a lot as closed' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining it's for manual cleanup when lots aren't automatically closed, differentiating from create_lot/list_lots/get_lot/assign_split_to_lot.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Use when a lot is fully sold but wasn't automatically marked closed, or to manually close a lot with zero shares'). It explains the automatic closure behavior, but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other lot operations, leaving some ambiguity about when NOT to use it.

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