close_pane

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does explicitly warn that the process running in the pane will also be closed, which is valuable for a destructive action. However, it does not mention that the pane is permanently removed, that unsaved process state may be lost, or what happens if the pane ID is invalid.

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?

Two short clauses with no filler: the action comes first, the side effect second, and the parameter format last. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke it, and an output schema is present so return values need not be explained. However, the destructive permanence is not explicitly stated, and there is no guidance about verifying the pane before closing it. An agent could infer it, but the definition leaves that behavioral gap open.

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 schema only states that 'pane' is a required string with no description. The description compensates well by explaining the expected format with a concrete example: `w17:p1`. This is enough for an agent to construct a valid call, though it could say how to obtain the pane ID.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('close') and resource ('pane'), and even names the key side effect: 'any process running in it'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_pane, split_pane, and list_panes.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose close_pane over alternatives, when not to use it, or what to do first, such as listing panes to get a valid pane ID. The agent must infer intended use from the name and the single sentence.

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