pane_close

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: the pane's process is killed, not just detached, which is the core risk an agent needs to weigh. Missing is what happens on failure or whether the pane must be idle/owned first.

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?

Two short sentences: purpose first, safety constraint second. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or 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?

For a destructive one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety flags and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies the crux (process termination) and an ownership guard. Only the pane_id provenance/format is left unexplained.

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% for pane_id, and the description says nothing about the parameter — no format, no source (e.g., from pane_list), no scoping. With one undocumented required parameter, the description should compensate and does not.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Close a pane') and adds the key consequence ('kill its process'). The pane scope implicitly distinguishes it from tab_close and workspace_close, though that distinction is never made explicit.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition/exclusion: 'Only close panes you created or the user named.' That is a real usage rule an agent can act on, though it does not name an alternative tool or explain what to do if the pane fails the check.

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