zerodom_close_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the most important behavioral trait: the group's tabs are ungrouped and the group forgotten, and if it was the last group the sandbox turns off so the agent can drive any tab again. It still omits reversibility (a zerodom_restore_groups sibling exists) and any error/permission behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 needn't be described, and the core behavior is covered. However, with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the identifier and about whether the close can be undone.

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% and the single required 'name' parameter is never mentioned in the description. It is loosely inferable from 'an agent group', but the description does not state that the group is identified by name, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Close an agent group') and immediately clarifies the mechanics ('ungroup its tabs and forget it'). This distinguishes it from tab-level siblings like zerodom_close_tab, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative group-lifecycle tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as zerodom_restore_groups or zerodom_adopt_group. The sandbox-off consequence hints at context but is a side effect, not usage direction.

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