bgi_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses graceful versus forced shutdown, the config-overwrite risk if BetterGI keeps running, the admin-privilege limitation, and the confirm/dry_run safety gate. It also states that the tool reports whether the process was actually closed, which is important behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose comes first, followed by the config-overwrite warning, permission caveat, and confirm/dry_run requirement. No sentence is expendable, though the bolded parenthetical formatting makes it slightly heavier than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry safety, permission, and reporting context; it does all of that. Given the tool's destructive potential and the four-parameter schema, the definition supplies everything an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds useful semantic context by linking force to 'necessary' escalation, confirming that confirm:true is required for actual closure, and presenting dry_run as the preview mode, though it does not elaborate on the target enum beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a precise verb and resource: close Genshin Impact / BetterGI, with graceful-then-force behavior and truthful reporting. It also scopes the target set (game vs BetterGI vs both), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bgi_status, bgi_start_game, and bgi_focus_game.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: BetterGI must exit before modifying User\config.json or User\OneDragon\*.json because it may overwrite the file while running. It also states the confirm/dry_run requirement and notes the admin-permission alternative path, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for checking status first.

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