lira_close_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the refusal condition on unsaved changes and a non-obvious side effect (a server-read model is saved, after a backup, before closing). It omits what state the model is left in afterward, whether the active-model pointer is cleared, and what errors surface.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default, followed by the two behavioral caveats. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the backup parenthetical is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers both parameters plus the destructive/saving behavior. Remaining gaps are edge cases: behavior when the named model is not open, and the identifier format.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that model defaults to the active one and that discard_changes gates the unsaved-changes refusal. It still does not say what form the model identifier takes (name, path, handle), leaving one ambiguity.

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 and resource ("Close a model") plus a scope default ("the active one"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like lira_open_model, lira_save_model and lira_create_model. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional rule: it refuses when there are unsaved changes unless discard_changes is true, which tells the agent exactly when it must flip a flag. It does not name alternatives (e.g. save first via lira_save_model), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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