Close the active InDesign document, with optional save and confirmation to avoid losing unsaved changes.
Close the current document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | Save before closing | |
| confirmDestructive | No | REQUIRED: Confirm potential data loss |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 only says 'close the current document' and does not disclose the potential for data loss, the need to confirm destructive actions, or the effects of the save parameter. The schema hints at data loss, but the description itself does not.
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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it omits valuable context about destructive behavior.
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 destructive action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent calling close_document({}) might lose unsaved data because the description does not explain the save/confirm behavior or warn about consequences. Additional context is necessary for safe use.
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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning about how save or confirmDestructive affect the close operation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('current document'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from siblings like open_document and save_document, though it does not add detail about what 'current' means in multi-document contexts.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when it is safe to close, or what state the document must be in. Sibling tools like save_document exist, but no selection criteria are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.