close_game

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

Annotations cover safety (destructive/readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), and the description still adds substantial context: authorization source, no-force-kill constraint, preconditions, the 0-30s expected duration, operation_id-based deduplication, and the uncertain-response retry rule ('permits querying the identical operation only'). This is well beyond what the annotations supply.

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?

The authorization condition is front-loaded and every clause carries operational weight (preconditions, duration, dedupe, retry). It reads as a dense run-on that is harder to scan than separated sentences, but there is little pure filler.

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 described, and the description still covers authorization, preconditions, timing expectations, failure rejection cases, and retry semantics. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains that observation_id must be the latest and that operation_id deduplicates retries and governs safe re-query after an uncertain response. Only timeout_s is left semantically unexplained, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 verified Balatro window and confirm exit') and explicitly bounds the action ('without force kill'). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like launch_game or recover_lost_session 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?

Gives explicit when ('explicit user close request or standing authorization ... in docs/balatro-ai/maintenance.md') and when-not ('Reject active runs/UNKNOWN'), plus a full precondition gate: known current profile, latest observation_id, ready, normal results or idle main menu, no pending actions. Nothing is left to inference.

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