field_dropdown_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'if it is open,' suggesting a no-op when the dropdown is closed, but it does not specify whether the tool errors or silently succeeds in that case. It also does not disclose any other side effects (e.g., focus changes) or prerequisites, leaving the agent uncertain about invocation consequences.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and conditional, making it easy to parse. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple atomic action.

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 has three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and explicit behavioral details (e.g., error handling). While the action itself is simple, the missing parameter explanations make it impossible for an agent to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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%, meaning the schema provides only parameter titles, not descriptions. The description does not mention any of the three parameters (field_name, session_id, search_by_title) or their roles. An agent has no guidance on what values to supply for field_name (e.g., label vs. identifier), what session_id controls, or how search_by_title affects behavior. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action: 'Close an open dropdown for a form field.' It uses a specific verb (close) and resource (dropdown), and the conditional 'if it is open' clarifies the scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like field_dropdown_items and field_dropdown_state, which handle listing items or checking state.

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 ('if it is open') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on preconditions (e.g., checking field_dropdown_state first) and does not name sibling tools for comparison. The conditional hints at usage, but the guidance is minimal.

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