studio_close

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the mechanism ('taskkill'), which implies a forceful termination of every instance rather than a graceful save-and-quit, but it omits the critical consequence for this class of tool: unsaved work is lost and the action is irreversible (undo/redo siblings cannot help).

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 zero filler, and the parenthetical mechanism note earns its place by clarifying how the close is performed. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema action tool, the description covers what happens and how. The one meaningful gap is the absence of any warning that unsaved place state is discarded, which matters because sibling tools include save_place and undo.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, all-instances scope, and there is nothing further to document.

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 an unambiguous resource ('all running Roblox Studio instances'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like stop_playtest or studio_status. It does not explicitly name the nearest confusable sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 says what the tool does but never when to reach for it versus alternatives such as stop_playtest (ends a session) or studio_status. There is no guidance on prerequisites, confirmation, or the conditions under which a hard process kill is appropriate.

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