Close all sub-windows except current

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the keyword 'MUTATING' is partly redundant. The genuinely additive information is that unsaved changes surface the app's own confirm dialogs, which tells the agent that a blocking user prompt may occur mid-call — something no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the use case, then the behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds something new and nothing is padded.

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 parameterless window-management tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it closes, why to call it, and the confirm-dialog caveat. It does not say what the agent should expect if the user cancels a confirmation or whether any summary of closed windows is returned, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the target set is derived from session identity rather than an argument, which is the only semantic question a parameterless tool raises.

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 every CyberBrick app window') plus an explicit scope boundary ('except the one this MCP session is connected to'). That scope clause is what distinguishes it from the sibling window_close, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

'Use to clean up editor windows accumulated from project_open_editor' names a concrete triggering scenario, which is real usage guidance rather than implied context. It stops short of an explicit exclusion or naming window_close as the alternative for single-window cases, so it is not a 5.

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