window_close

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

Annotations already mark the action destructive and readOnly=false; the description adds a meaningful warning that unsaved work may be lost and that force triggers a confirmation prompt. This gives the agent risk context beyond the structured hints.

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 description is extremely compact: one sentence for the core action, one for the dangerous force mode, followed by a clean Args/Returns skeleton. Every sentence contributes without filler.

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 simple destructive close action, the description covers the main behavior, the force warning, and the return type. It is missing usage direction and any note on prerequisites such as obtaining a window identifier from window_list, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 Args line merely names query and force without explaining them, so the tool-level description adds little semantic value. However, the nested schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters, making the overall definition sufficient for correct invocation.

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 a concrete verb+resource: 'Egy ablak bezarasa' (closing a window), and the force-mode warning clarifies the action. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like window_focus or window_list, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose window_close over alternatives such as window_focus or window_list. The only conditional mentioned is force-mode confirmation, which is more about behavior than usage selection.

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