close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two concrete non-obvious behaviors: it persists the login and the close cascades to all sessions of that profile. It stops short of stating reversibility (can the profile be reopened?), failure behavior for unknown profiles, or permission requirements.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately parenthesizing the cascading effect. Zero waste.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main effects but omits reversibility, error cases, and what 'saving the login' actually persists, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% for the single 'profile' parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the parameter's blast radius ('affects all its sessions') but never says whether the value is a name, id, or path, leaving the identifier format undocumented in both places.

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 ('close') and resource ('profile'), plus the non-obvious side effect of saving the login. It's clearly the counterpart to the sibling 'open' tool, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the teardown step after working with a profile opened via 'open', but the description never says when to call it versus leaving a profile open or when 'snap'/'remember' should be used instead. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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