Close Environment

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, the description does not explain what 'close' entails (e.g., resource cleanup, reversibility, side effects). It merely restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 with minimal redundancy, making it concise and front-loaded. The use of 'close/shut down' is slightly redundant but not overly verbose. It effectively communicates the core action without unnecessary detail.

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 with one fully documented parameter and annotations covering mutation and idempotency, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about return values, success/failure behavior, or what closing entails, which would be useful for an agent to anticipate outcomes. The lack of output schema raises the need for such context.

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 for the single required parameter simulation_id, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, such as format, default behavior, or edge cases, but the schema alone is sufficient for basic invocation.

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/shut down a simulation environment.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from tools like stop_simulation and delete_project. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify the difference between 'environment' and 'simulation,' leaving some ambiguity with sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mirofish_stop_simulation or mirofish_delete_project. It lacks prerequisites, context, or any mention of alternative tools, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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