payhip_close

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful context beyond the name — that credits accrue while the session is open and stop when closed — but it omits whether closing is idempotent, what happens if no session exists, and whether any in-progress state is lost.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and appends the reason for taking it. No filler, no restatement of the tool name as a separate clause.

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 session-teardown tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and why it matters. The only real gap is edge-case behavior — calling it with no active session or calling it twice — which is minor for a tool this simple.

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 and the schema is closed with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 and resource — "Close the Payhip browser session" — which is unambiguous and implicitly contrasts with the payhip_open sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the counterpart tool, so it lands at clear-but-not-sibling-differentiating.

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?

"When the work is done" gives a concrete trigger condition for calling the tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if the session is already closed) and no alternative named, which keeps it below a 5.

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