close_sequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-destructive UI action by saying 'tab', but never states whether unsaved changes are lost, whether the sequence stays in the project, or what the tool returns — all critical for a close operation.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of thinness, but nothing in it is padding.

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?

One optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema — a very simple surface — yet the description says nothing about the outcome of closing a tab or its preconditions. An agent cannot predict whether this discards state, so the definition is not complete for the operation it performs.

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% (the 'sequence' param documents its default of 'active'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about accepted values or what happens when the parameter is omitted, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 sequence's timeline tab' — and the addition of 'timeline tab' meaningfully distinguishes it from delete_sequence, which appears in the sibling list. It stops short of a full 5 because 'close a sequence' alone could be read as destroying the sequence, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No indication of when an agent should close a timeline tab rather than leave it open, and no mention of delete_sequence as the alternative for actually removing a sequence. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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