iris_works_close

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral consequence that the schema cannot convey, namely that credits stop running once the session is closed. However, it does not say whether closing destroys in-progress state, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if a session is not open.

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 the action first and the motivating reason second. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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-parameter teardown tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both what it does and why it matters (credits). The only meaningful gap is the lack of disclosure about what session state is lost on close.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond its schema. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description adds no misleading parameter expectations.

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?

Specific verb (close) plus specific resource (the Iris Works browser session), so an agent can tell this apart from siblings like iris_works_open and iris_works_status. It stops short of a 5 only because it does not explicitly name a sibling it complements or contrasts with.

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 condition: call it 'when the work is done.' The usage context is implied well enough for a zero-param teardown tool, but there is no explicit statement about what counts as done or what to do if the session is already closed.

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