fiji_ui_dialog_close

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the interesting behavior: it rejects missing/ambiguous dialog titles, it does NOT emulate a button press, and it reports back whether the dialog remains visible (i.e. the close can be refused). That is substantive context beyond the structured fields. It stops short of explaining what happens on refusal or any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the operation and keeps the behavioral caveats tight, with no filler. The final clause runs on awkwardly ('reports whether the dialog remains visible Only for dialogs the user asked you to close'), suggesting a missing sentence break, which costs a point.

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?

With one required string parameter, no output schema, and sparse annotations, this covers the essentials: what it does, which dialogs it is legal for, how it fails, and that it returns visibility state. Only the exact return shape and post-close state handling are left unspecified, which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds matching semantics the schema does not: the title must resolve to exactly one visible dialog, and missing or ambiguous matches are rejected. That meaningfully clarifies how dialog_title is used beyond its 'from fiji_ui_dialogs_read' note.

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+resource ('Request the normal window-manager close action for one visible dialog') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the button-choosing sibling: 'does not choose a button'. An agent can route between fiji_ui_dialog_close and fiji_ui_dialog_respond without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Only for dialogs the user asked you to close', which is a real gating rule an agent would otherwise get wrong. It also implies that button selection belongs elsewhere, but does not name fiji_ui_dialog_respond as the alternative, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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