close_stats

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuine behavioral guarantee not present in the structured fields: 'never sends account credentials', which is meaningful auth-context for an agent. It does not mention error behavior if the URL is invalid.

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 action, then the required argument source. Both clauses earn their place with no filler; it is well sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 tool takes one parameter. What is present (action, URL source, credential safety) covers the essentials; only edge cases like repeat-close or invalid-URL behavior are unstated.

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 param has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the load. It explains that 'url' is the exact URL returned by the dashboard, which is semantics the bare 'string/Url' schema does not convey.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Stop a local dashboard', which cleanly separates it from siblings like open_stats and prepare_stats. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'using its exact returned URL' tells the agent both the precondition (a URL previously returned, presumably by open_stats) and the constraint (must be exact). It stops short of stating when-not to use it or what to do if the dashboard is already closed.

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