Close Views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the window-scope constraint but does not disclose what actually happens to the views (unsaved state, whether it closes all or selected views), leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that conveys the action, the target resources, and the scope constraint with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 2-param mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations on view types, the description should explain view_type options and what 'close' entails (e.g., unsaved changes), which it omits.

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% for both parameters. The description only restates the aprx_path=CURRENT requirement, adding no meaning to view_type (default MAPS_AND_LAYOUTS) or its possible values. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 (关闭/close) and resource (地图、布局、报表或表视图) with the exact scope (当前窗口). Distinguishes it from siblings like arcgis_pro_open_report_view and arcgis_pro_list_temporary_views by naming the view types it closes.

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?

Clarifies the constraint that aprx_path must be CURRENT, which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., release_temporary_view, detach_window) for closing views in other contexts.

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