close_user_messages_panel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only states the action itself, without explaining side effects, failure behavior when the panel is not open, idempotency, or the role of session_id. Beyond the verb 'Close', there is little transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action and target immediately, making it highly scannable and efficient for agents.

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 tool, the description covers the core purpose but omits critical context: what session_id means, whether the panel must be open, and what happens on failure. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent gets barely enough information to invoke it correctly.

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% and the description never mentions session_id. The agent only sees a parameter titled 'Session Id' with a default in the schema, but no explanation of what it references or how it interacts with the 'active test-client window'. The description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Close'), identifies the exact resource ('user messages panel'), and scopes it to the active test-client window. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_form and field_dropdown_close, leaving no ambiguity about what it operates on.

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 it (whenever you need to close the user messages panel), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. There is no routing guidance to other tools, though the verb and resource are self-explanatory for this narrow action.

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