close_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the core effect (task becomes done) and a notable side effect (the issue is closed), which is meaningful. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or any consequences of the optional branch/project scoping.

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, front-loaded sentence. The parenthetical adds important side-effect information without unnecessary detail, making it perfectly economical for an agent to parse.

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 simple state-transition tool with a self-documenting schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable absence is explicit usage-context relative to sibling task operations, but the low complexity and strong parameter documentation keep the gap small.

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?

All parameters have full descriptions in the schema, including the opaque nature of project and the optionality of branch. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark... done') and a clear resource ('a task'), and adds the side effect 'closes its issue.' This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like edit_task, start_task, or delete_task.

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 intended trigger—use this when a task should be marked done—is implied by the description, but no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. It leaves the agent to infer that this is different from editing or deleting a task.

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