console_close

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the internal sequence (stop and join reader, deactivate driver) and disclosing the error condition for unknown sessions. This complements the idempotentHint annotation without contradiction.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary action and include essential behavioral details. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core behavior, idempotency, and error handling. It is complete for a close operation, though it could be slightly more explicit about the session parameter's provenance.

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?

The schema has one 'session' parameter with no description, and the tool description only references it indirectly through 'unknown session'. It does not explain the format, how to obtain the session ID, or any expectations, which is insufficient given 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Close a console session', and provides implementation details ('stop and join its reader, then deactivate the driver'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like console_open, console_read, and console_send.

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 description implies when to use the tool by defining it as closing a session, and the 'Idempotent' and 'unknown session is a tool error' notes give guidance on expected behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context provided by sibling tool names is sufficient for a clear use case.

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