remote_pane_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the 'cannot close the last pane' restriction, but does not disclose side effects such as destruction of the pane, impact on running processes, irreversibility, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. 'Close a pane' states the action, and the parenthetical adds a critical constraint, both earning their place.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context for this destructive operation. It lacks guidance on how to obtain pane IDs, what happens to running processes after closing, or any prerequisites. The current description is too sparse for safe, informed use.

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 input schema fully describes paneId as 'Pane ID to close' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Close a pane'. It also adds a useful constraint ('cannot close the last pane') that distinguishes it from other pane-related tools. The operation is unique among siblings like remote_pane_split or remote_pane_focus.

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 action is implied as the way to close a pane, and the 'cannot close the last pane' provides a when-not constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), or how to identify pane IDs (e.g., via remote_pane_list).

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