nexo_task_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It hints at 'dead-ending' and 'close gates' but does not clearly state side effects, required permissions, or whether the action is destructive. The behavioral context is insufficient.

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 concise, with two short paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds specialized guidance without unnecessary fluff. Could benefit from bullet points for parameter lists, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the high parameter count (33), lack of schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or side effects, and fails to cover most parameters. The agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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%. The description adds meaning for only a few parameters (work_type, stakes, artifact_hash, last_human_validation_of_artifact_hash) but leaves the remaining 29 parameters, including required ones like sid and task_id, undocumented. Meaningful guidance is limited.

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 action ('Close a protocol task') and resource ('task'), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like nexo_closure_close, though the 'protocol task' context helps.

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 guidance for high-stakes closures by specifying required parameters, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_task_open or nexo_closure_verify. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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