vterm_close

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does earn credit for disclosing the key consequence: the underlying process is terminated, not merely detached or hidden. It still omits failure modes — what happens with an invalid or already-dead pid, whether the call is idempotent, and whether in-flight work is lost.

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 waste; the most important fact, that the process dies, is included. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 lifecycle tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essential facts — action and side effect — are present. What is missing, error behavior on stale pids, is minor at this complexity level.

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% and the sole parameter is documented as the process id returned by vterm_spawn, which even cross-references the sibling that produces it. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (close) and resource (a visible terminal window), with a parenthetical that disambiguates what closing means: the process is terminated. That distinguishes it cleanly from vterm_spawn, vterm_send and vterm_read, which create, write to, and read terminals.

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 verb-resource pair and the sibling set, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, no mention of cleanup duties, and no declaration that this is the counterpart to vterm_spawn. An agent must infer that from tool names alone.

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