Close conversation

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

The description discloses key behavioral detail: closing may launch an NPS bot, and force_close=true skips it. This goes beyond the sparse openWorldHint annotation. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility or permissions, so it's not fully transparent but adds meaningful 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?

Two sentences, perfectly concise, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the key behavior and the force_close nuance, making it sufficiently complete for the complexity, though it could be more explicit about post-close outcomes.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining force_close's effect. The id parameter is left implicit but is fairly obvious from context. This partial explanation is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 main action 'Close a conversation' with a specific verb and resource. The addition of 'or launch NPS bot' introduces a dual purpose that slightly muddies the primary intent, but it still distinguishes this tool from conversation list/get/message siblings.

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 indicates the primary use case (closing a conversation or launching NPS) but doesn't provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the large sibling list, more direction would help, but the basic context is clear.

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