close_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Close a presentation' implies a destructive operation that might end a session or remove data from memory, but it doesn't specify effects like whether unsaved changes are lost, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens post-closure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Close a presentation' directly conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or return values. With 100% schema coverage for inputs, it meets a basic threshold, but for a destructive operation, more guidance would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'doc_name' and 'should_save' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying default behaviors or usage examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'Close a presentation' clearly states the action (close) and resource (presentation) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from siblings like 'save_presentation' or 'open_presentation' by focusing on termination rather than persistence or access. However, it doesn't specify what 'close' entails (e.g., ending editing session, removing from memory), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have an open presentation), exclusions (e.g., not for saving), or related tools like 'save_presentation' for saving before closing. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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