herdr_workspace_close

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so 'Destructive.' merely restates structured data and earns no credit. Nothing is added about the group-close side effect on linked worktrees, whether closed panes lose state, or whether the operation can be undone.

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 short sentences with the operation front-loaded and the risk flag second. No waste, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than elegance.

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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the minimum is met: safety profile from annotations, parameter meaning from the schema. Gaps remain around the group/linked-worktree cascade and confirmation semantics, which the description should surface given the destructive nature.

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%, so each parameter (workspace_id, confirm, group) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no formatting, ordering, or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: closing a workspace, explicitly including its panes. This scope ('and its panes') distinguishes it from herdr_pane_close and herdr_tab_close, though the description never names those alternatives.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the required confirm flag as a precondition. 'Destructive.' is a warning label, not usage routing; an agent gets no instruction on choosing this over herdr_pane_close or herdr_worktree_remove.

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