fscp_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one side effect (freeing memory) but fails to mention whether closing is irreversible, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to the handle after closing, or what the response contains. The operation is mutative, so more transparency is expected.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and side effect. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, but the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of contextual detail in other dimensions.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and a simple purpose, the description omits essential usage context: no mention of when to call this versus other fscp_* tools, no parameter explanation, and no clarity on the side effects beyond memory freeing. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing usage and parameter guidance.

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 zero description coverage (0%) for the handle parameter, and the description does not explain that 'handle' refers to the archive identifier. The description only vaguely mentions 'archive' but never connects it to the parameter. The agent is left without any clue about the expected format, purpose, or lifecycle of the handle.

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 states a clear action ('close') on a specific resource ('archive') and adds a side effect ('free session memory'). It differentiates from siblings like fscp_open and fscp_save by the verb. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other fscp_* operations, and the Russian wording adds minor ambiguity for non-Russian agents.

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 usage (close when done with the archive) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like fscp_save or fscp_revert. An agent must infer context from the operation name and sibling list.

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