Close transient panels in Cakewalk SONAR while preserving standard dialogs and unsaved-work prompts by default; explicit confirmation is required to dismiss dialogs and risk discarding work.
Close transient panels. Standard dialogs, including unsaved-work prompts, are preserved by default. Dismissing them may discard work and requires closeDialogs:true and confirm:"closeDialogs".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| closeDialogs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive risk ('may discard work'), the default preservation behavior, and the exact opt-in gate. It omits return behavior, reversibility (undo), and any failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Three short sentences with the safe default front-loaded followed by the escalation path. No filler; every sentence adds behavioral or parameter information an agent needs.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, default safety, and the opt-in mechanism adequately. It leaves undefined what 'transient panels' concretely are in this application and says nothing about the result or recoverability, which a careful agent might want.
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 0%, so compensation is required, and the description delivers the literal value the schema never states: confirm must equal "closeDialogs" and closeDialogs must be true. Both parameters are given meaning beyond their bare types, including the default-off semantics of closeDialogs.
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 transient panels') and immediately clarifies what is out of scope, implying the boundary with cw_list_overlays. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the transient-vs-standard-dialog distinction makes the tool's target identifiable without opening the 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?
The description gives a clear selection rule: use by default to close transient panels, and only escalate to dismissing dialogs when work loss is acceptable, gated behind two parameters. It stops short of naming alternatives like cw_list_overlays or cw_undo for recovery, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.