case_close

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals finality and side effects: the case becomes a permanent record, 'a closed case is not closed again and its record is never rewritten.' It also discloses the output shape and the meaning of open_gaps, which is especially useful because there is no output schema. No statement conflicts with the annotations.

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 compactly sectioned as WRITE/WHEN/RETURNS/GOTCHAS, front-loading the purpose and placing caveats at the end. Every section adds operational value with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, this is complete: it states when to call it, what it returns, the meaning of open_gaps, and the irreversibility caveat. The annotations supply the remaining safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter at 100%, including provenance ('from case_open/case_list'), the absence of a grade parameter, and refusal of already-closed cases. The prose reinforces the grade-recomputation behavior but adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Record the final grade and archive the case — step 08.' The description also differentiates the operation by saying it 'computes and records the grade rather than accepting one,' which separates it from grade-related or read-only case tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit 'WHEN' section: use it 'when the investigation is finished, or is being handed over.' The GOTCHAS section adds a when-not and an alternative: 'a closed case is not closed again' and to reopen, 'open a new case that cites this one.' This gives agents concrete routing context even though it does not name each sibling tool.

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