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 discloses significant side effects (auto-recording artifacts, opening protocol debt) but omits details about destructiveness, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens to the closed task. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth on consequences.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but for a tool with 26 parameters, brevity comes at the cost of clarity. There is no structure (e.g., bullet points, parameter groupings) to help an agent quickly understand inputs. The primary action is front-loaded, but the side effects are listed in one run-on clause.

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 tool's complexity (26 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain any parameter, return value, or preconditions. An agent cannot reliably determine how to populate fields like 'learning_content', 'change_risks', or 'followup_verification'.

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 input schema has 26 parameters with 0% description coverage (no descriptions). The description adds no parameter information whatsoever. An agent would have no clue about the meaning of parameters like 'sid', 'outcome', 'evidence', 'files_changed', etc. This is a critical gap that severely limits 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 the primary action ('Close a protocol task') and specifies three distinct side effects (auto-record evidence/change-log/followup artifacts, open protocol debt when discipline missing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexo_task_open (which opens tasks) and nexo_task_list (which lists tasks). The verb+resource pattern 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts where closing is appropriate, or exclude cases where other task tools (e.g., nexo_task_log, nexo_task_frequency) would be better. The phrase 'open protocol debt when discipline is missing' hints at a condition but does not clarify when or why a user should invoke this tool.

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