close_change_request

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which are consistent with a write operation. The description adds a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED) but does not elaborate on the consequences of closing (e.g., irreversible state change, impact on associated items). This is adequate but could be more informative.

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 description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information: action, parameters, and a prerequisite. There is no redundant or unnecessary text, making it very concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core information. It could mention that the close code may be from an enumeration or that the change request becomes closed and may not be reopenable, but it is already reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add further details. The description briefly mentions 'close code and notes', aligning with the schema. No additional meaning is required beyond 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 action ('Close'), the resource ('change request'), and the required parameters ('close code and notes'). It also includes a prerequisite condition. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_change_request' or 'resolve_incident'.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which gives a condition for usage. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other change request operations like 'update_change_request' or 'submit_change_for_approval'. More context on workflow would improve it.

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