Close Live Gui Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds only the scope constraint that the target process was launched by this server; it says nothing about unsaved state, whether the session must be running, or idempotency of a repeated close.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than over-writing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves key gaps: how the session is identified (schematic_path?), what the caller receives on success, and how it relates to the other live_gui_session lifecycle tools. Annotations cover safety only, so the description should carry more.

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 only 50%: workspace_root is documented in the schema, but the required schematic_path has no description. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter that presumably identifies which session to close.

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 (stop) and resource (GUI process) with the scoping constraint 'this server launched', so an agent understands it terminates a server-managed GUI. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like close_remote_session or the other live_gui_session tools, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. close_remote_session). The phrase 'this server launched' hints at a scope restriction, but the agent is left to infer when closing is appropriate versus leaving the session open.

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