Close a room

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial context beyond them: what stops working (join/ask/vote), that live surveys close at the same moment, that questions and results remain readable, the room_not_open failure mode, that no email is sent, and the required rooms:write scope. It resolves the ambiguity that 'destructive' would otherwise imply, rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect of the call, then usage, then error/auth/return details. Every clause carries distinct information - no restatement of the title or name.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states what is returned ('the room and its links'), covers the side effects, the auth requirement, and the failure case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is 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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% - the schema already documents 'code' with a six-character pattern and an example. The description adds no format, case-sensitivity, or sourcing guidance for the room code, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Close an open room') and immediately enumerates the exact consequences: audience can no longer join, ask or vote, and live surveys close simultaneously. This clearly separates it from sibling close_survey, which acts on a single survey, and from list_rooms/get_room_qa which read state.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('when the session ends'), a follow-on action ('read the Q&A with get_room_qa'), the reverse operation ('reopen it later with open_room'), and a hard precondition with its error code ('A prepared room cannot be closed (room_not_open)'). Nothing about when to choose this over close_survey is left to inference.

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