close_cpacs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Free resources' hints at cleanup, but it does not say whether the session_id becomes invalid, whether the call is idempotent, what error occurs for an unknown/already-closed session, or whether in-flight work is discarded — significant gaps for a state-tearing 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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral detail rather than a sign of completeness.

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 state-changing teardown tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should cover post-conditions and error behavior. It does not, so an agent cannot predict the result of calling it on a stale or invalid session.

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 session_id, its expected format, or whether it must reference a currently open session. With one required, wholly undocumented parameter, the description adds nothing beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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 resource ('CPACS session'), which pairs cleanly against the sibling open_cpacs and separates it from read/query siblings like get_configuration_summary. The added 'free resources' clarifies the effect but no further scope detail.

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 guidance on when to close versus when to leave a session open, whether closing is required before process exit, or what to do if the session is already closed. The only hint is the implied lifecycle pairing with open_cpacs, which the agent must infer from the name alone.

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