stm32_close_ide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this by explaining both execution paths: graceful closing versus forceful termination. It stops short of warning about potential unsaved data loss from force-killing processes, but it does reveal the core behavioral distinction.

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 contains exactly two sentences: one for the primary action and one for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to extract the needed information quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary operational details: the action, the target resource, and the single parameter's behavior. A minor enhancement would be a note about force mode potentially losing unsaved work, but the definition is already complete enough for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, force, is fully explained: 'If True, forcefully terminates... otherwise closes gracefully.' Because schema description coverage is 0%, this textual explanation is essential and compensates entirely for the bare schema; nothing about the parameter is left ambiguous.

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 starts with a concrete action and resource: 'Closes running STM32CubeIDE instances.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like stm32_launch_ide, stm32_focus_ide_window, and stm32_get_ide_windows, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 use case is clearly implied: close running STM32CubeIDE instances. It also gives actionable guidance for choosing between the graceful and forceful modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but for this simple tool the context is clear enough.

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