desktop_close_task

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 disclose a real behavioral split: stopping owned processes versus detaching a live target without closing it. It omits anything about irreversibility, required permissions, what state the task is left in, or how the two modes are selected, which matters for a cancel/terminate operation.

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 filler, semicolon-separated into the general action and its two variants. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is partly what creates the ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the dual behavior is at least surfaced. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool with an undocumented required parameter, an agent lacks the information needed to predict consequences or pick a mode confidently.

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% and the description never mentions task_id, so nothing in either field explains what identifier is expected or where to obtain it. With one undocumented required parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

It states the effect well enough (cancel work, stop processes, detach a live target) and implicitly contrasts with desktop_open_task, but the jargon 'owned fixture processes' and 'live target' never connects back to the tool's actual resource, a task identified by task_id. An agent has to infer that 'cancel work' means closing the task named in the parameter.

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 explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative; the sibling desktop_open_task is only obliquely implied by the word 'close'. The clause 'without closing it' hints at a mode distinction but never says under what conditions each mode applies.

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