oc_lane_close

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying that unrelated task tabs remain untouched, providing context beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail what 'lane-owned targets' are or potential side effects, but the added scope constraint is helpful.

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 sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part adds value: action, scope, and exclusion.

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 close operation with destructive annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains what is closed and what is preserved. However, it could mention handling of missing lanes or confirmation of closure, but given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, it is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the action; it restates the parameters implicitly. No extra value added to parametric 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 clearly states the verb 'close' and the resource 'task-scoped browser lane', and specifies it does not affect unrelated task tabs, distinguishing it from sibling lane-manipulation tools like oc_lane_create or oc_lane_get.

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 this tool (to close a lane) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison with alternatives like oc_lane_list or oc_lane_get. The 'without closing unrelated task tabs' provides some context but not full usage criteria.

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