close_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it names the wire message and discloses the concrete failure mode (server keeps sd->state.storage_open set and silently drops walk/item-use packets). It does not describe a response or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the message identity, the required usage condition, and the consequence of omission. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. Baseline 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to add or omit.

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 (send) and the exact protocol resource (CMSG_CLOSE_STORAGE 0x00f7), so an agent knows precisely what the call does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearby npc_close sibling, which is the only gap keeping it from a 5.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Required after clicking a storage NPC.' This tells the agent exactly when the call is mandatory. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., npc_close) or when not to use it, so not a 5.

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