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

The description adds significant behavioral context by noting that 'closing may discard unsaved changes or quit an application.' This complements the `destructiveHint: true` annotation by providing the specific risks and consequences of the action.

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 definition is highly concise, using two efficient sentences. The first sentence defines the scope and action, and the second provides the essential warning, maximizing information density.

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?

The description is very complete for a destructive operation. It covers the 'how' (closing the window), the 'where' (paired computer), and the critical 'what if' (loss of unsaved data/quitting the app). With 100% schema coverage, this risk disclosure is highly valuable.

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?

Given that schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description reinforces the intent of the parameters, specifically that they are used to identify a 'specific application window,' adding semantic clarity to the required identification process.

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 exact action ('close a specific application window') and the target environment ('on the paired computer'). It is specific and unambiguous, making its function immediately apparent.

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?

While it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives (e.g., minimizing), it provides critical usage guidance by warning the user to 'confirm the intended window and save work first.' This guides the agent on the required caution.

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