close_source_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'close source monitor' without mentioning side effects, conditions (e.g., what happens if no source monitor is open), or any state changes beyond the obvious closure.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the phrase 'expanded operation' is filler that does not earn its place. It is concise but not optimally informative.

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 simple nature of the operation, an empty schema, and lack of output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about the source monitor state and its relationship to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters and the description adds no misinformation.

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 'close source monitor' with a clear verb and resource, making the core action understandable. However, the prefix 'expanded operation' is vague and adds no meaningful clarity, and it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool close_all_source_clips.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_in_source or close_all_source_clips. The description gives no context on use cases, prerequisites, or when a user should prefer this over sibling tools.

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