close_window

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral insight — that this is a polite request and the app may present a confirmation prompt — which is more than the schema says. However, it omits whether the call blocks until the window is gone, what happens if the app refuses, and whether unsaved data could be lost, all of which matter for a destructive-feeling operation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its most important caveat (possible confirmation prompt) front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the action itself is simple. Still, for a close operation the agent needs to know about the confirmation prompt's implications (does the call return before confirmation?) and the undocumented window_id, both gaps that keep this at merely adequate.

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 single parameter window_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not where to obtain a valid id (presumably list_windows) nor what happens with an invalid or already-closed window. With a one-parameter tool the description had an easy opportunity to compensate and did not.

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 names a specific verb (close) and resource (window) and clarifies the mechanism — equivalent to pressing the window's close button. It reads clearly against siblings like list_windows or focus_window, though it doesn't distinguish itself from window_action, which could plausibly also close windows.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: an agent should reach for this when it wants to dismiss a window. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of window_action as an alternative, so the agent must infer which sibling to pick.

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