close_assignment

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the state transition (active → closed), that closed items leave the briefing but stay readable, and the availability window. It does not say whether closing is reversible or what side effects it has on the other party, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action first and the state/availability consequences after. The mid-sentence quote placement and run-on second clause make it slightly less crisp than it could be, but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts an agent needs: what closing does, the allowed outcomes, the optional reason, and when it can be called. Return payload and irreversibility remain unaddressed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies the domain of 'outcome' (completed/cancelled, which the schema does not enumerate) and clarifies 'note' as the reason for closing and optional. 'assignment_id' is left to inference but is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close an active assignment') and enumerates the outcome values ('completed' or 'cancelled') plus the optional note. It is clearly distinct from assign/amend_assignment and from the order-family siblings (cancel_order, resume_order), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Usable while it is not my turn" gives the agent a concrete timing condition, and the description routes it to the right place to see closed assignments (assignments(status="closed")). It stops short of stating when closing is preferable to amending or simply leaving an assignment open.

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