close_mask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive ('delete') and why it exists (free memory), which covers the key trait. However, it omits details like irreversibility, potential errors for invalid mask_id, or any effect on the underlying image, leaving some unknowns.

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 10-word sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, immediately followed by the purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant terminology or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what action to take, on what resource, and why. The only minor gap is absence of a note on side effects beyond memory usage, but that does not hinder correct use.

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 100% — 'mask_id' is already documented as 'Mask view ID to close'. The description's mention of 'mask window' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides, hence the baseline score.

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 uses explicit action verbs 'close and delete' with a specific resource ('mask window') and even states the purpose ('to free memory'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like remove_mask or close_image, making the tool's unique role 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?

The phrase 'to free memory' implies a usage context (when the mask window is no longer needed and resources should be released), but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as close_image or remove_mask, nor does it provide exclusions.

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