close_process

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the concrete consequence beyond the flags: scan result sets are dropped and the agent merely "detaches" rather than terminating the process. It does not clarify what happens to a session's other state or whether the effect is reversible, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive consequence is stated immediately rather than buried.

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 no explanation, and the destruction of scan results is disclosed. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation tool, the description omits permission/session prerequisites and any when-to-use context.

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?

There is a single parameter, session_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description implies the identifier is tied to the process being detached from, but never states its format, origin, or relationship to open_process's session, so it only partially compensates.

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 ("Detach from") and resource ("a process") plus the side effect on scan result sets, which operationally distinguishes it from open_process and the scan/read siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., after finishing with a session, or versus simply leaving it open). Usage is only inferable from the verb, with no prerequisites or exclusions given.

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