close_application

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

The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds context about how the application is identified (by exec binary and process name) and that it uses friendly names. It doesn't disclose potential side effects like unsaved data loss, but given annotations, the extra detail is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The naming resolution reference is efficient and relevant.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers identification and matching. It could mention behavior when the app isn't running or multiple instances, but that's a minor 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the 'name' parameter by stating it accepts friendly names and .desktop resolution, with examples 'Chrome' and 'firefox', and clarifies the matching logic. This compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 it closes a desktop/GUI application, distinguishing it from process-killing tools by specifying its scope and naming resolution. It also mentions matching by exec binary and process name, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It references open_application for name resolution, implying a similar usage pattern, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like kill_process or close_window, nor does it state when to prefer this over them. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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