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

With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true already declared, the description adds genuine context by defining what 'destructive' means here: pushed content or a scene is ended and the screen reverts to its own content. It doesn't cover auth requirements or what happens if nothing is currently pushed, but the core effect is disclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the effect ('goes back to its own content') is stated immediately after the action. Nothing is redundant, though slightly more structure would help given two parameters.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile (destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description covers the action, target scope, and resulting state. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially compensates by referencing 'one screen or sub-screen', which hints at screen_id vs. subscreen_id, but it never explains that screen_id is required and subscreen_id is optional, nor what a sub-screen target implies for the operation.

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?

States a specific verb ('End pushed content or a scene') and resource scope ('one screen or sub-screen'), plus the observable outcome ('goes back to its own content'). It differentiates from release_all by scoping to a single screen, though it never names the sibling tools explicitly.

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 single-screen scope implies when to use this instead of release_all, but that's left to inference. There's no explicit statement of when not to use it, and no mention of release_scene or activate_scene as alternatives.

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