close_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'prevents stale collision traffic', which implies a state change. However, it does not mention whether closing is reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., slices or submissions), or any permission requirements. This is a minimal but partial disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It states the action, the condition, and the benefit. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (which may cover return values), the description lacks behavioral details that an agent would need to use it correctly. It doesn't mention side effects beyond preventing stale collision traffic, nor does it explain prerequisites or what happens after closing. Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, this is not critically incomplete, but it could be more thorough.

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 0% and the description does not mention plan_id or actor_id at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (plan_id is an identifier, actor_id identifies an actor), but no additional meaning, constraints, or formats are provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a plan' with a specific resource and purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_plan and start_slice by describing a closing action. The condition 'when that actor no longer intends to execute it' clarifies the scope. This is a specific verb+resource with clear intent.

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 provides a clear when-to-use condition: 'when that actor no longer intends to execute it'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the condition is unambiguous and actionable. It lacks explicit exclusions but the context is sufficient.

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