close_incident

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and no idempotency. The description adds the specific requirement WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is not in annotations. However, it does not clarify what 'close' entails (e.g., status change, deletion, audit trail) beyond the destructive hint.

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) and front-loaded with the action. It effectively communicates the core purpose, though the prerequisite could be integrated more naturally.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is still lacking key behavioral context such as what state the incident transitions to, whether it triggers workflows, or side effects. It minimally covers the essentials.

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 schema already describes the single parameter sys_id with full coverage (100%). The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage details for the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Close' and identifies the resource as a 'resolved incident'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_incident (which is for unresolved incidents) and complete_task or close_change_request (different resources).

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 implies usage for closing resolved incidents and states a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer close_incident over resolve_incident or complete_task.

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