express_close_debug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: eXpress is quit and relaunched, plus the security rationale of closing port 9229. It omits whether in-flight chat state or unsaved work is lost on relaunch and what happens if the port is already closed, which matters for a restart-class 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the trigger plus rationale following. Nothing is repeated from the schema or padded.

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-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and why. A note on post-restart state effects would make it fully self-sufficient, but 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?

Zero parameters and additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to add at the parameter level; the baseline applies.

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 the debug inspector port') and adds the mechanism ('gracefully quitting and relaunching eXpress'), which no sibling tool shares. An agent can distinguish it from the express_read_*/express_status family without opening any schema.

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?

'Call when finished reading' gives a clear triggering condition and names the purpose (stop exposing 127.0.0.1:9229). It does not state what to do if the inspector was never opened, nor name any counterpart tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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