Close a game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the two things destroyed (browser tab and static server), implying the session is torn down, but it is silent on whether in-flight state is lost, whether the session can be reopened, what errors occur for an unknown game_id, and whether this requires the game to be open. That is a meaningful gap for a teardown 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; the affected resources come immediately after the verb. Nothing here needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basic action. But as an unannotated teardown tool it omits the information an agent most needs: effect on saved/unsaved state and how it relates to restart or open_game. Adequate, but with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents game_id as the id returned by open_game. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g. format, validity conditions for stale ids), so the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?

States a specific verb ('close') and the exact resources affected ('browser tab and static server for a game session'), which an agent can act on directly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like 'restart' or 'back', which could also terminate a session view, leaving some ambiguity about which teardown tool applies.

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 says what gets closed but never says when to call it — no mention of end-of-session cleanup, no exclusion of alternatives such as 'restart' (which presumably keeps the session) or 'back'. The only usage signal is the indirect reference to 'open_game' in the schema, so the agent must infer the pairing.

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