Close case

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it pulls the voting deadline to now, triggers the verdict pipeline asynchronously, and explains that abandoning a jury ends in Undecided. It also discloses the arbitration-mode exception and the 'closes on its own at its deadline' behavior, which is valuable context.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core action and ownership restriction before explaining side effects and exceptions. Every sentence adds relevant information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a destructive async action with no output schema, the description covers the key operational points: eligibility, side effects, async behavior, how to retrieve the result, and edge cases. The information is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool and what to expect afterward.

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 already documents the only parameter, caseId, including the ownership and case-state constraints. The tool description reinforces these constraints but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool's action: closing a case early, and identifies the eligible resources (open cases and jury_selection cases). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by noting the asynchronous verdict pipeline and the follow-up tool to read the outcome.

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 explicitly states who may use it (case owner or admin), which cases it applies to, and when it cannot be used (arbitration-mode cases owned by the caller). It also gives clear follow-up guidance: use tribeunal_await_verdict to read the outcome.

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