nexo_task_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'close gates' and 'dead-ending' but does not describe whether the operation is irreversible, what side effects occur (e.g., task status changes, notifications), or any required permissions. The behavioral impact of closure is not 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?

The description is concise, with two short paragraphs. The first sentence provides a clear summary, and the second paragraph adds necessary nuance for a subset of parameters. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more organized with bullet points or formatting.

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, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is significantly incomplete. It fails to explain the majority of parameters, return values, error cases, or overall workflow. An agent would lack critical information to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

With 30 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the purpose of key parameters. It only details work_type, stakes, artifact_hash, and last_human_validation_of_artifact_hash. The required parameters sid and task_id, along with outcome, evidence, and many others, are left unexplained. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 that the tool closes a protocol task with evidence and optional artifacts. The verb 'close' paired with 'protocol task' directly indicates the action and resource. The added detail about high-stakes closures further specifies the scope, distinguishing it from generic close tools like nexo_closure_close.

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 provides some guidance for high-stakes closures (e.g., needing work_type and artifact_hash parameters), but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative closure tools like nexo_closure_close. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice, and it lacks any mention of prerequisites or fallback options.

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