Close the windows

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

The description discloses the post-command verification behavior and the unsupported-model response, which go beyond the annotations. It aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the main action and verification are front-loaded, followed by the caveat. No filler or redundant restating of schema or annotations.

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?

The action, verification behavior, and support limitation are all covered. With an output schema present and the confirm parameter documented in the schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the single 'confirm' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Close all power windows') on a clear resource, and adds a verification step that distinguishes it from simple status/read siblings. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It gives practical context by warning that not every model supports the operation and explains Toyota's 'vehicle not supported' response. There is no close-windows sibling to contrast with, so the lack of explicit alternative routing is acceptable, though an explicit 'use when windows are open' condition would be stronger.

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