Stage Panel 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 the key side effects: the pending panel_show resolves with null, the page replies {closed}, and a panel_closed event is emitted with a reason. It stops short of saying what happens if the panel is not open or whether it requires an active scene, but the mutation semantics are well surfaced.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The parenthetical about the emit reason ('why "closed by Claude"') is slightly cryptic shorthand but costs little space.

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?

Return values needn't be explained since an output schema exists, and the side effects are covered, but for a no-annotation mutation tool with two fully undocumented required parameters the definition leaves a real gap in how to construct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two required parameters, and it does not. Neither 'scene' nor 'panel_id' is explained (format, where a panel_id comes from), leaving the agent to guess.

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 and resource ('Close an open panel') and ties it to the page command panel_close, which also distinguishes it from stage_panel_show. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling phone_panel_close, but the stage_ prefix and panel_close command make the scope reasonably clear.

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 note that a waiting panel_show resolves with answer null implies the pairing (use this after showing a panel), but there's no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or mention of the phone_panel_close alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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