ue_editor_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 explains the two-phase closing strategy (clean close via save + bridge, fallback to process termination) and defines the effect of each parameter. However, it does not specify what happens if the editor is not open, the outcome on failure (e.g., error messages), or the state of unsaved changes when force=True and save_all=False.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose ('Chiude l'editor'), followed by a clear behavioral summary and parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (two boolean parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core functionality well. However, it lacks details on preconditions (e.g., editor must be open), error handling, and what happens on success (e.g., empty return). Still, for a closure tool, the provided information is largely sufficient.

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 provides only parameter names and defaults with 0% schema description coverage, but the tool description fully explains both parameters: save_all saves level and assets before closing, and force skips the clean attempt. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, enabling correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool closes the editor ('Chiude l'editor') and describes the specific behavior of attempting a clean close then fallback to force termination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_save_all (only save) and ue_editor_open (open), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for closing the editor, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., use ue_save_all if only saving needed). No guidance is provided on prerequisites or situations where the tool might fail, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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