uplus_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two effects — browser detachment and worker session release — but says nothing about idempotency, whether login state or browser state persists, or what happens to in-flight browse_* calls afterward.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and both effects (detach, release) are front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema teardown tool the description covers the basic effect, but omits lifecycle context an agent needs: whether the session becomes unusable afterward, whether credentials survive, and whether calling twice is safe.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the empty schema is self-evident and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter chatter.

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 action pair (detach from browser, release worker session) on a clear resource, which is distinguishable from lifecycle siblings like uplus_login and browse_launch_edge. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation comes from inference rather than statement.

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?

The teardown semantics imply end-of-session cleanup, but the description never says when to call it (end of task? on error?), whether it is optional, or what alternatives exist. Usage is inferred from the verb rather than guided.

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