Close Request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Close' hints at a state change but the description says nothing about reversibility, required permissions, side effects, or what closure_info does. It is marginally better than a bare verb, but behaviorally opaque.

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 single fragment is short but that shortness reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded explanation of what closing entails or what the parameters mean.

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?

A mutation tool with a nested free-form required parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation is not callable with confidence. The description supplies none of the missing context.

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 0%, and closure_info is an unconstrained nested object with additionalProperties {}. 'Close with closure_info' tells the agent nothing about what keys or values that object requires, leaving the most important parameter completely unexplained.

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 phrase 'Close with closure_info' essentially restates the tool name 'Close Request' plus the name of a required parameter. It does convey a mutation verb and implies the resource is a request, but adds no scope, effect, or distinguishing detail versus siblings like update_request or delete_request.

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 close a request versus updating, deleting, restoring, or assigning it, nor any prerequisites such as state requirements. The agent is given no routing information at all.

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