close_window

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations already declaring this is not read-only and not idempotent. It does not disclose whether closing is graceful or forced, whether unsaved changes are at risk, or whether the action is reversible. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and required parameter.

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, the description is minimally viable: it names the action and the required input. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns or how success/failure is reported, and it leaves the agent to infer prerequisites like how to obtain a valid window ID.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Saying 'by window ID' confirms that window_id selects the target window, but it repeats essentially what the parameter title already implies and offers no format, source, or acquisition guidance.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Close'), a specific resource ('a window'), and the key identifier ('by window ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_application, minimize_window, and active_window.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention that a window ID must already be known or obtained (e.g., via active_window). The description implies the need for a window ID but provides no routing or prerequisite information.

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