close_case

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

Annotations only give the bare safety profile (write, not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds real context: an already-closed case is refused, the record is never rewritten, and open_gaps is surfaced at closing time. The 'not closed again / never rewritten' behavior is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with a [WRITE] marker and one-line purpose, then cleanly sectioned into WHEN / RETURNS / GOTCHAS. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the return shape ({case_id, state, grade, open_gaps, path, note}), plus trigger conditions and irreversible-behavior caveats. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single case_id parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the note that there is no grade parameter. The description restates the grade-computation behavior but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

The description gives a specific verb (archive/record grade), the resource (the case), and its position in the workflow (step 08). It clearly separates this from siblings like open_case and grade_case by stating that closing computes the grade rather than accepting one.

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 WHEN line names the trigger (investigation finished or being handed over), and the GOTCHAS section explicitly routes the reopen scenario to opening a new case that cites this one. It also explains why closing is one-way, so the agent won't reach for a reopen tool that doesn't exist.

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