close_scoped_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious trait: closure does not promote underlying work to VERIFIED. It is silent on permissions/actor requirements, reversibility or idempotency of closing, and what happens to recorded findings.

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?

A single tight sentence with the precondition front-loaded and a second clause that adds distinct information. No filler, though the terseness borders on underspecification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and fully undocumented parameters the description should cover required authority and the effect on audit state. It covers the precondition and one side-effect constraint and little else.

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 none of the three parameters (audit_id, actor_id, optional summary) are explained in the description. The description does not compensate at all for the schema gap, leaving actor attribution and summary semantics entirely undocumented.

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 verb 'close' plus the tool name identifies the resource (a scoped audit), and the clause 'closure never promotes underlying work to VERIFIED' actively separates it from verification-oriented siblings like verify_slice and accept_slice. It stops short of a full plain-language statement of what closure does to the audit record itself.

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?

'Close only after no pending frontier remains' states an explicit gating precondition for invocation, which is real when-to-use guidance rather than vague implication. It does not, however, point at siblings such as audit_status or audit_mutation_allowed for checking the frontier before calling.

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