FogBugz

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a write operation that changes case status. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the closure status ('will not fix / done') and providing an example with a comment, though it lacks details on permissions or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise example that illustrates usage. Both sentences are necessary and efficient, with no redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity (destructive mutation with 2 parameters), annotations cover safety aspects, and schema fully describes inputs. The description adds useful context on closure status and an example, but lacks output details (no schema) and could clarify more on behavioral traits like error conditions.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning a comment example, but does not provide additional semantics or constraints beyond what the schema already states (e.g., caseId is numeric, comment is plain text).

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 verb ('Closes') and resource ('a FogBugz case'), and specifies the action's effect ('marks it as will not fix / done'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'reopen_case' and 'resolve_case' by focusing on final closure with specific status implications.

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 final case closure (e.g., 'will not fix / done'), suggesting it's for completed or abandoned cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'resolve_case' or 'update_case', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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