square_appointments_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the billing consequence ('credits stop running'), which is a genuine cost-control fact an agent could not get from the schema. However, it says nothing about idempotency, what happens if no session is open, whether unsaved work is lost, or what errors to expect — significant gaps for a session-terminating 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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and target followed by the timing condition and the reason. 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-parameter session-termination tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, when to call it, and why it matters for cost. Only the failure/no-session behavior is missing, which is a modest gap given the tool's simplicity.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no argument syntax the description needs to explain. The description correctly implies the target session is implicit rather than passed as an argument.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Close the Square Appointments browser session' — which cleanly complements the sibling square_appointments_open and cannot be confused with click, read, type, status, or guide. It stops just short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 invoking the tool, which is more than most definitions offer. It does not state any when-not condition (e.g. what to do if no session exists or if a session is still mid-task), leaving that inference to the agent.

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