Close the loop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the HTTP verb/path; it says nothing about reversibility, what 'closing' an action does to its state, or whether a learningNote is retained, which is what would earn credit beyond the annotations.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and endpoint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than merely concise.

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 mutating, open-world tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell how this differs from forbiz_close_without_signal, what the outcome enum means, or what happens to the action afterward.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implies id (via the {id} path) and outcomeStatus ('with its outcome'), but never explains the four enum values (expected/partial/unexpected/deferred) and never mentions learningNote at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve an action with its outcome') plus the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows this is a write that closes an action loop. It does not distinguish itself from close alternatives in the sibling list such as forbiz_close_without_signal or forbiz_mark_executed, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 when-to-use guidance, no precondition, and no named alternative. The most obvious alternative, forbiz_close_without_signal, is never mentioned even though the two names are nearly identical, forcing the agent to guess which close path applies.

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