close_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversible loss of documents, unsaved changes and handles, the side effect of switching back to 'default', and the respawn behavior of the default worker. It stops short of permission/auth requirements or error behavior for an invalid name.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its destructive consequence, then the edge-case behaviors, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information; slightly dense but no filler.

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-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the data loss, the current-workspace side effect, the default-workspace case, and even the return shape inline. Only the invalid-name/error path is unaddressed.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description implies the parameter is the workspace name and even reveals that 'default' is a valid target, which is genuine added value, but it never explicitly defines the argument or its valid values.

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 (shut down) and resource (a workspace's worker plus its pool slot), and implicitly distinguishes itself from close_document by scoping destruction to 'all of that workspace's documents, unsaved changes, and handles.' An agent can tell it apart from the sibling document-level close without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear situational context: it explains what happens when you close the workspace you are currently in (return to 'default') and that the default workspace may also be closed. It never explicitly names close_document or use_workspace as alternatives, so there is clear context but no stated exclusions.

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