eda_sys_iframe_close_iframe

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the extension-only restriction, the guaranteed throw in standalone environments, and a Promise<boolean> return value. It does not elaborate on what happens if the target iframe does not exist or how close differs from hide, but the key behavioral risks are covered.

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 compact and labeled with signature, remarks, note, and return sections, making it easy to scan. The 'remarks' line largely restates the main verb phrase, a minor redundancy, but no sentence is gratuitous.

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 simple close operation, the description includes the essential context: what it closes, the optional id behavior, the environment limitation, and the return type. Since no output schema exists, mentioning Promise<boolean> is valuable and sufficient for an agent to assess the call.

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 schema already describes windowId as the target EDA window ID with active-window fallback, and the description adds that the underlying API takes an optional id. However, the relationship between the generic 'args' array and the described id parameter is not clarified, leaving some ambiguity for callers.

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 clearly states the action: '关闭内联框架窗口' (close the inline frame window), and includes the API signature closeIFrame(id?: string). This gives the agent a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate between closing and hiding an iframe relative to sibling tools like eda_sys_iframe_hide_iframe, so it stops short of 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?

The description provides an explicit environment constraint: this interface is only valid in extensions and will always throw an Error in standalone script environments. That is useful when-not guidance. However, it does not discuss when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as hide_iframe or show_iframe.

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