view_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the model session survives the close and that only the 'owned' viewer is affected, but says nothing about error cases (viewer not open), idempotency, or confirmation semantics.

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?

One sentence with the action and the key side-effect front-loaded; every word earns its place and nothing is repeated from 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 one-parameter teardown tool with an output schema present (so return values need not be described), the description covers the essential behavior and the critical side-effect distinction. Only edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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 compensate, and it does not mention session_id at all. The single required param is fairly self-evident, but 'owned' is the only clue tying the viewer to the session and it is not elaborated.

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+resource ('Close the owned native viewer') and adds the outcome qualifier 'preserving the model session', which implicitly distinguishes it from session_close. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase 'preserving the model session' implies the intended scenario (tear down the viewer without ending the session), which hints at when to prefer this over session_close. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of alternatives.

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