Close Incident

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes the incident state to Closed, but omits other behavioral traits like reversibility, permissions required, or side effects. Given no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentences with no redundant text. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical context. 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 description explains the state change and prerequisite, but given 4 parameters and no output schema, it lacks details on error conditions, return values, and when to use vs. resolve_incident. Moderately complete for a simple mutation.

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 100% (all parameters are described in the schema). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists parameters without explaining nuances like close_code constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool closes an incident by setting state to Closed (7). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'resolve_incident', which could cause confusion. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 a precondition ('should be in Resolved state', though config-dependent) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over 'resolve_incident' or when not to use it. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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