Close slot

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 meaningful behavior: the session and cookies are saved, the profile/logins are preserved, and it reports recent use by another agent. This is genuinely useful state-persistence context, though it omits error cases (closing an already-closed slot) and any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and its primary consequence. Every sentence carries distinct information (what closes, what persists, what is reported).

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 low-complexity single-slot mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral outcome and even describes the returned signal (recent use by another agent). Only error/edge-case behavior is absent.

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 100%, so slot (1-30 mapping rules) and agent are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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: "Closes slot Chrome cleanly," which is enough to distinguish it from sibling browser_tab_close (closes a tab, not the slot/browser). It does not name the sibling it is contrasted with, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for shutting a browser slot down. No condition is given for when to use this versus browser_tab_close or slot_pause, and no prerequisites (e.g. the slot must be launched) are stated.

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