herdr_tab_close

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the trailing 'Destructive.' merely restates structured data and earns no credit. The description does add one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: that the tab's panes are destroyed along with the tab, which is meaningful scope-of-destruction context.

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?

Two very short sentences with the scope statement front-loaded. The 'Destructive.' fragment is redundant against the annotations, which costs it the top score, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

Adequate for a simple destructive action whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and whose parameters are fully documented by the schema. It is missing, however, any note on consequences (killed pane processes, irreversibility) or routing to sibling close tools.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents tab_id and the confirm guard. The description adds nothing about identifier format or why confirmation is mandatory, making this the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close a tab') and clarifies scope by noting it also closes the tab's panes, which is what separates it from herdr_pane_close. It stops short of naming those sibling tools explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus herdr_pane_close or herdr_workspace_close, and no prerequisites or warnings about what happens to running processes in the closed panes. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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