Close case

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behaviors: 403 with no error code for non-owners/admins, abandoned jury ends Undecided, deadline is pulled to now, the verdict pipeline runs asynchronously, and the response has state decision_pending. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that annotations alone could not convey.

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 every sentence earns its place: scoping, state eligibility, side effects, return shape, exceptional arbitration mode, and an alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately qualifies it with 'YOUR cases early,' making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: who may call it, on what states, what happens asynchronously, what the response looks like, and the one exceptional case where the caller cannot act. The alternative routing and read-verdict instruction complete the picture.

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 caseId as the UUID of the open or jury_selection case to close early, owner/admin only. The description reinforces these constraints but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: close one of YOUR cases early, and immediately narrows scope to owner/admin-only, open/jury_selection cases. It explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_case and await_verdict, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does relative to siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: works on open and jury_selection cases, cannot close your own arbitration-mode case, and if no votes are cast, delete_case is the recommended alternative. It also tells the caller to use tribeunal_await_verdict to read the verdict, covering follow-up routing.

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