Close application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'force-close,' indicating abrupt termination, and adds an important safety boundary by refusing critical system processes. It does not spell out possible data loss, but the word 'force-close' is a meaningful disclosure.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the friendly-name list is compact and scannable. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it defines valid inputs, lists supported aliases, and states a critical safety exclusion. Minor gaps such as failure behavior when the app is not running or whether unsaved data may be lost prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating friendly names and aliases (chrome, google_chrome, msedge, etc.) and by clarifying that the parameter can be a friendly name or a process/.exe name. This helps an agent construct valid input without guessing.

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?

The description opens with 'Force-close a running application by name,' which names a specific verb and resource. The extensive known-name list and the explicit refusal of critical system processes clearly separate this from sibling tools like close_folder_window or shutdown_pc.

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 implies when to use the tool: for force-closing a running application by name. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as close_folder_window, focus_app, or shutdown_pc, though its scope is reasonably inferable from the context.

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