Close Comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a mutation ('close'), implying it changes state, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects, or what happens to the comment thread after closing. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, reversibility), parameter context, and usage guidelines, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 50% (only 'card_id' has a description specifying 'Full 36-char UUID'), so the description must compensate. However, it adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the verb—it doesn't explain what 'thread_id' represents or the relationship between parameters. The baseline is 3 because the schema covers half the parameters, but the description doesn't adequately fill the gaps.

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 action ('close (resolve)') and resource ('a comment thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'reopen_comment' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other comment-related tools like 'create_comment' or 'reply_comment' beyond the verb itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., comment must be open), exclusions, or relationships with siblings like 'reopen_comment' (which logically reverses this action). Usage is implied by the verb alone, leaving the agent to infer context.

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