close_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the schema: that replay resources are released. It omits other relevant behavior for a lifecycle/teardown call, such as irreversibility, idempotency, error conditions, and whether the capture data becomes unavailable afterward.

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 action and its side effect are stated immediately. It is efficient, though terse enough that it verges on under-specification rather than maximal conciseness.

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 tool is low-complexity with one parameter. Still, with zero annotations the description should cover error/duplicate-close behavior and permission needs; it only covers the resource-release side effect, leaving the lifecycle contract partly undefined.

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% and the description never mentions capture_id. The single parameter's self-explanatory name is the only signal, and the description adds no format, source, or validity information to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Close') and resource ('capture session'), clearly the inverse of the sibling open_capture. The added clause 'release its replay resources' sharpens the effect. It does not explicitly name open_capture or other siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implied by the name and by the existence of open_capture, so an agent can infer this is the teardown counterpart. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. a capture must be open), and no guidance on what happens if called twice or on an invalid id.

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