workspace_close

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), but the description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that unapplied changes require an explicit discard flag and local confirmation. This goes beyond what the annotations provide and helps the agent understand the safety mechanism and prerequisite for destructive action.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds essential conditional behavior without verbosity. Every word contributes to clarity, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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's simplicity (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the main action, the destructive nature, the parameter's purpose, and the confirmation requirement. There are no ambiguous aspects or missing behavioral details that the agent would need to infer.

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 schema has only one parameter (discard_unapplied) with no coverage from the schema description (0%). The description fully compensates by explaining that unapplied changes need this flag, directly linking the parameter to its purpose. This gives the agent a clear understanding of when to set it to true.

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 action: 'Remove the active local snapshot.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like workspace_open, workspace_status, or workspace_diff, which have different purposes. The mention of unapplied changes and discard flags further clarifies the scope.

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 explains when the discard flag is required (for unapplied changes), which provides clear context on how to handle a common scenario. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is evident from the tool name and description, and the guidance on unapplied changes covers the main usage nuance.

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