wps_wpp_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the critical side-effect (no save), which is essential for an agent to avoid data loss. This is a key behavioral trait beyond the basic action of 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information: action, object, and critical side-effect. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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?

Given the simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and its major behavioral consequence. There are no missing details needed for a human or agent to use this 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?

The schema has 0 parameters, so the description has no parameters to document. Schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no gap. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning; the 0-param context is fully covered. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the minimal complexity.

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 '关闭当前演示文稿（不保存）' clearly states the verb (关闭, close), resource (当前演示文稿, current presentation), and the critical side-effect (不保存, without saving). This distinguishes it from siblings like wps_wpp_save and wps_word_close, which operate on different contexts or actions.

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 implies a destructive action (closing without saving) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wps_wpp_save. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned, but the context of 'close' and 'don't save' is reasonably clear for a developer familiar with document workflows.

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