close_database

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behavioral details: cancellation of orphaned execution on final lease, waiting for IDB to close, and the GUI database exclusion. This goes beyond what the schema or annotations would convey, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects.

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, each carrying substantive information. The primary action and key constraint are front-loaded, with behavioral caveats following. No redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the key behavioral side effects, and an exclusion. An agent can safely decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema already fully describes the single optional parameter (instance_id) with clear semantics ('If omitted, release the current target'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description states a specific action ('Release this MCP's IDA Nexus database handle') and adds scope ('without disrupting other clients'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by mentioning the managed idalib worker and GUI databases, making it obvious this is the close operation.

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 description implies when to use it (to release the handle) and provides an explicit exclusion ('GUI databases are never closed here'), which helps the agent avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like open_database or save_database, so the contrast is implicit rather than direct.

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