windows_shell_close

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, but the description says 'Immediately revoke... invalidate... terminate', which suggests destructive actions. However, the description does not contradict the annotations directly; it adds context about what happens (revoke, invalidate, terminate). Since annotations are present, the description adds some value by specifying the exact effects, but it could be more explicit about side effects like whether it is reversible or requires confirmation.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the action. It covers the key effects without unnecessary words. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. However, it does not mention what the output or return value is, but the output schema likely covers that. It also does not mention any prerequisites or side effects beyond the listed actions, which could be important for a close operation. Overall, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but that is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: revoke Windows Shell authorization, invalidate reviews, and terminate the active command tree. It uses specific verbs and resources, and it distinguishes from siblings like windows_shell_status and windows_shell_open by indicating a closing/termination action.

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 the user wants to close the Windows Shell session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like windows_shell_close vs workspace_close. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context of 'close' is clear enough.

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