close_window

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: "(deferred)" hints the close is not synchronous but never explains what deferred means in practice. Nothing about what happens to unsaved state, what occurs with an invalid or already-closed window, or whether the call is idempotent.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but at this length the brevity reads as under-specification rather than economy. The one decorative element, "(deferred)", adds ambiguity instead of information.

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?

A one-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to establish the identifier format and the deferred-close semantics. Neither is present, so an agent cannot invoke this tool with confidence.

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% and the single required parameter "window" is a bare string with no format documented anywhere. The description never says whether it expects an ID, a title, a handle, or a name, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb+resource pair "Close a window" is identifiable, but the parenthetical "(deferred)" is cryptic and undercuts precision — an agent cannot tell whether the close is immediate, queued, or only scheduled. No differentiation from the obvious sibling list_windows or from any other window-related tool.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative applies. With siblings like list_windows in the catalog, the description gives no routing signal at all, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.

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