close_support_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the irreversible nature of closing ('cannot be reopened'), which is a significant behavioral trait. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or what happens to related data (e.g., comments), so transparency is incomplete.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences that convey the core action and a critical consequence. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the action, the irreversibility, and the schema provides the parameter format. Minor gaps like permissions or response format are acceptable for this complexity, so a 4 is warranted.

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 100%, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents (resource name format). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not hinder parameter understanding.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('existing support case'). It also includes a key consequence (cannot be reopened), distinguishing it from siblings like update_support_case or create_support_case.

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 usage for closing an existing case but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as update_support_case. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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