typora_close

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: a normal close surfaces unsaved prompts, whereas force termination presumably bypasses them. That is exactly the consequence an agent needs to weigh before killing the app. It stops short of saying whether the call blocks on the prompt or whether unsaved data is lost outright.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the default behavior and the exception after the semicolon. No filler, no redundancy, and the destructive branch is clearly gated.

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 zero-required-parameter lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers the key decision (safe close vs. kill). It could add what happens on success or if Typora isn't running, but nothing essential to 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% for the single boolean 'force', so the description carries the burden. It does explain that force drives force termination, but the phrasing ('force termination only when force is true') is close to circular and doesn't clarify the default (false = normal close) or the data-loss consequence.

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 Typora') and splits the behavior into two modes (normal close vs. force termination), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not explicitly position itself against the adjacent sibling typora_restart, which also terminates the app, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clause 'force termination only when force is true' functions as conditional guidance for the force case and implies normal close is the default path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-typora_restart or typora_launch guidance, and no statement of prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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