close_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavior of the save parameter (save=true saves to file before closing), implying unsaved changes are lost otherwise. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, side effects, or what happens if the model isn't open. It adds some value beyond the schema but misses other behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately adds the critical save option. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (closing and save option). It lacks explicit error handling or side-effect notes, but given the low complexity and that the save behavior is addressed, it is largely complete. A 4 is appropriate because it could mention what happens if the model is not open, but it is not severely incomplete.

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. It explains the save parameter ('save=true saves to its file before closing'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain model_id beyond what the schema already says ('Model Id'), leaving its role implicit. Partial compensation but incomplete.

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 action: closing a model in PowerDesigner, with a specific resource (model). It distinguishes from siblings like open_model, create_model, save_model by focusing on the close operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it operates on an already-open model, which could be implied but is not stated, so a small gap in differentiation.

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., model must be open), nor does it contrast with save_model or open_model. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the agent is left 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.