emacs_buffer_kill

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral and safety information. It only says 'Close/kill a buffer', leaving the consequences for unsaved changes, confirmation behavior, and irreversibility implicit, and the force parameter is described only in the schema, not in the tool description.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is lean rather than poorly structured, though it is thin enough that behavioral details are left to the schema.

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?

This is minimally viable for a simple two-parameter tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description does not convey result behavior, failure modes, or destructive consequences on its own.

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% because both 'buffer' and 'force' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

'Close/kill a buffer' names a specific action and target resource, and 'kill' is a distinct operation among the sibling buffer tools. It could more explicitly differentiate itself from buffer_switch or buffer_edit, but there is little real ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that buffers with unsaved changes will not be killed unless force is used. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the wording 'Close/kill a buffer'.

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