create_feeds_by_id_close

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only the endpoint URL and a pointer to schema for the body, but does not explain the action's effect, permission requirements, or state changes. With annotations present, the description still fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact and well-structured with a URL and Args section, containing no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: the opening purpose sentence is too vague, and brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

The tool has an arbitrary object body and a domain-specific action ('close'), but the description lacks any explanation of what the action does, when it is appropriate, or side effects. It relies entirely on the schema pointer and annotations, which is insufficient for correct 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates slightly by labeling id as a path parameter and body as the request payload, and by instructing to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, though the actual body structure remains unspecified.

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 says 'Create or act on feeds close,' which is vague and nearly restates the tool name. It provides the URL POST /api/feeds/{id}/close, hinting at a close action, but never defines what 'close' means in this domain or distinguishes it from the many feed-related sibling tools like create_feeds_*_open.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only instruction is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for the body payload, which addresses parameter discovery, not usage selection. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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