close

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: host-only restriction, archiving rather than deletion, timing (after the turn ends and the user leaves the app), incident status handoff to `track`, and reversal via a new send. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure expected of a mutation tool.

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 core semantics are front-loaded in the first two sentences and the framing 'never deleted' is well placed. The trailing 'Args:' block adds little for a one-parameter tool and slightly dilutes the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, side effects, and reversal. The only material omission is what form the `topic` argument takes.

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 0% and the description only restates the parameter as 'the topic to close', giving no hint about whether it is an ID, slug, or name. The role of the single parameter is obvious, so this is adequate but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a topic') plus its concrete effect (conversations archived, never deleted). An agent can distinguish it from neighbors like `track` and `send` without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the default behavior absent the call ('a topic conversation is archived after 12 h without messages'), which is a clear use case, and notes that incidents are handled by `track` instead. No explicit when-not guidance beyond that, but the implied context is strong.

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