close_lot

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: lots normally auto-close via assigned splits, and this tool exists for when that doesn't happen. It explains the intended edge-case role without contradicting the annotations.

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 short and well-structured: a one-line action, explicit use cases, the single parameter, and a clarifying note. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and informative annotations. The description covers when to use it, why it may be needed, and what input is expected, which is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already describes guid as 'Lot GUID (32-char hex or 8+ char prefix)' with 100% coverage. The description's 'Lot GUID (or 8+ char prefix)' adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with the specific verb and resource: 'Mark a lot as closed.' It goes beyond the name by clarifying the tool is for manual cleanup, which distinguishes it from related lot operations like assign_split_to_lot or calculate_lot_gain.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when a lot is fully sold but wasn't automatically marked closed, or to manually close a lot with zero shares.' It also explains that lots close automatically at zero quantity, so the agent knows this is a fallback/manual tool rather than a routine one.

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