close_hr_case

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. However, beyond noting the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, the description discloses no further behavioral traits such as whether closing is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., notifications, workflow triggers), or permission details. For a destructive action, 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?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence that directly states the purpose and a key requirement. No fluff, no repetition of schema information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain operational details for a destructive tool. For example, it doesn't mention that the case becomes read-only, that close notes are mandatory, or that the close code affects categorization. The sibling context lists many close tools, but no differentiation is provided. The description is too minimal for a high-stakes action.

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% description coverage for all three parameters (sys_id, close_notes, close_code). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's definitions. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the action ('Close') and resource ('HR case'), and includes the additional context of using resolution notes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like close_incident or close_csm_case by specifying 'HR case'. However, it could be more explicit about the effect of closing (e.g., status change, irreversibility).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_hr_case, close_other_case). The only contextual hint is 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a system prerequisite rather than usage guidance. There is no mention of when not to use or what prerequisites (e.g., case status) are needed.

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