catia_drawing_close

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that — save=false silently discards changes, save=true persists, the 3D source is untouched, and saving demands a prior file name. The one tension is that 'discards changes' has a mildly destructive flavor against destructiveHint=false, though this is a reasonable design choice rather than a clear contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the save semantics and prerequisite. Dense but every clause (scope, source-stays-open, save default, file-name requirement) carries information the agent needs; only the nested parenthetical is slightly heavy.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to complete: default resolution, save behavior, preconditions, and blast radius are all covered. A brief word on failure mode (e.g., what happens if save=true without a file name) would close the last gap.

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?

With 50% schema coverage the description must carry part of the load, and it does: it explains the resolution order for 'drawing' (named, else this session's last used) and the full semantics of 'save' including its default and its file-name prerequisite. This exceeds the schema's bare 'default: the active document' note.

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?

Specific verb (close) plus precise resource (ONE drawing, named or session-last-used) and an explicit negative scope ('without touching any other document'), which separates it cleanly from catia_close_document and catia_close_all. The added note that the 3D source stays open removes the main ambiguity an agent would otherwise have.

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?

Usage context is clear: defaults to the last-used drawing, and save=true requires a pre-existing file name, routing the agent to catia_save_document with a path first. It does not explicitly state when to prefer catia_close_document or catia_close_all instead, but the 'ONE drawing / nothing else' framing makes the boundary inferable.

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