workspace_close

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningfully by disclosing the cascade — closing terminates every pane process in the workspace — and the ownership constraint, both of which go beyond the annotations.

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, action and scope front-loaded, with the constraint second. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation's scope and ownership rule are both stated. Minor gaps remain around irreversibility and what happens to running agents, but the essentials for safe invocation are present.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never addresses it. The name workspace_id is largely self-explanatory and the surface area is minimal, but the description offers no hint about where the ID comes from (e.g. workspace_list).

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 and resource ("Close a workspace") plus the blast radius ("every pane process in it"), which implicitly separates it from pane_close and tab_close. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from scope rather than stated.

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?

"Only close workspaces you created or the user named" gives a real precondition, but it is a safety restriction rather than routing guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer tab_close/pane_close for narrower shutdowns.

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