close_terminal

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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by naming the concrete safety default (refuses busy or non-prompt sessions) and the concrete cost of force ('can interrupt work'). It also instructs verification of actual removal rather than trusting dispatch, which is real behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the force caveat and a verification note. No filler and no repetition of the annotations.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations declaring the destructive profile, the description only needs to add operational nuance, which it does for force and scope. The remaining gap is the session parameter and any hint about how to distinguish close from release among siblings.

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 carry the load: it does so thoroughly for force, explaining its default-refusal semantics and the interrupt risk. It says nothing about session (format, provenance from list_terminal_sessions/claim_terminal), leaving one of two params undocumented, though the name is fairly self-evident.

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 (one claimed terminal session) and immediately bounds scope with 'never the whole app', so an agent knows this affects a single session. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling release_terminal, which an agent could reasonably confuse with closing.

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance for the dangerous path: default refuses busy/non-prompt terminals, and force=true 'use only when the user explicitly requests that'. It lacks routing guidance to alternatives such as release_terminal or switch_terminal, but the conditional usage for force is unusually clear.

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