haops_close_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions email sending conditional on message but fails to indicate side effects (e.g., ticket irreversibility, required permissions, or status transitions). The description is minimal for a mutating operation.

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 redundancy. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the main action.

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's complexity is moderate with 5 parameters and 3 required. The description covers the primary effect but omits when to use versus other ticket tools, any prerequisites, and expected response format. Lacks completeness despite good schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%; all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds context for the resolutionNote parameter by linking it to email sending, but overall adds limited extra meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Resolve or close a helpdesk ticket' with optional messaging. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like haops_reply_ticket (reply without closing) and haops_update_ticket (update without closing).

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 gives usage context (optional final message triggers email) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not contrast with alternative tools like haops_reply_ticket or haops_update_ticket for non-closing scenarios.

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