terminal_close

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

Contradiction with annotations: description says 'Destroy a terminal pane' (destructive action) while annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a serious inconsistency. The additional context about 'Active project lease may reclaim orphans' adds value, but the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the main action and scope. Each sentence adds information (destroy, reclaim orphans, not tmux). The second sentence is slightly cryptic but not wasteful.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance. The contradiction with annotations further reduces reliability. It covers the core action but leaves significant gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at lease_id via 'Active project lease', but does not explain alias, pane_id, or lease_id roles. This leaves the agent without enough information to correctly populate parameters for the intended target.

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?

Description clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Destroy') and resource ('terminal pane'), and adds 'drop its registry entry' to define the outcome. It distinguishes from siblings like terminal_interrupt and terminal_reset by focusing on destruction/removal, and explicitly notes it does not kill the tmux server.

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 description implies usage when a terminal pane should be destroyed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like terminal_interrupt or terminal_reset. It provides a negative scope ('Does not kill the tmux server') but no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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