workspace_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Never deletes a local workspace's files' and explains the delete_files option for managed workspaces. This discloses the main side-effect and safety boundary, though it stops short of clarifying reversibility or the exact state after closing.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the core action, the delete option, and the safety guarantee.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and key edge case (local vs managed). It could mention that a workspace can be reopened via workspace_open, but this is not critical for execution correctness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that delete_files is for 'managed (cloned) workspaces' and that local files are never deleted, which enriches the parameter semantics and the 'workspace' parameter's meaning.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource ('Stop tracking a workspace') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling workspace tools like workspace_open or workspace_info. It immediately conveys the core action and its scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (stopping tracking) and the key distinction between managed and local workspaces. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for typical selection.

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