combat_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose key effects: it clears the active actor, performs the same post-combat bookkeeping as a decisive combat_end_turn, and refuses when no combat is active. It falls just short of 5 because 'same post-combat bookkeeping' depends on knowledge of another tool and the return/confirmation behavior is not addressed.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by distinction from the sibling and then side effects/failure behavior. Every sentence adds information and none repeats the schema.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers when to use it, what it does, its side effects, and its error condition. The brief indirect reference to combat_end_turn's bookkeeping and lack of any return-value note keep it just shy of complete.

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%, so the description must explain the lone required 'reason' string, and it does: it enumerates valid reasons (fleeing, surrendering, truce, any mutual disengagement) and explicitly excludes elimination. It doesn't specify free-form vs format constraints, but that is a minor gap for a single string parameter.

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 first sentence states an exact verb and resource: 'Close an active combat for any reason other than elimination.' It immediately distinguishes itself from combat_end_turn by naming the sibling and specifying the boundary, so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting other tools.

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 explicitly routes decisions: combat_end_turn is only for when one side is empty, while fleeing, surrendering, truces, and mutual disengagement all go through combat_close. It also gives a negative condition ('Refuses when no combat is active'), telling the agent when it should not be invoked.

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