close_image

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether unsaved edits are discarded, whether closing the last image terminates or changes application state, where the XCF is written, or what happens if image_index is invalid. The only disclosure is "Returns status dict." For an operation that destroys in-memory state, this is a serious gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action, followed by a compact parameter list and a one-line return note. It is tight overall, with slight redundancy between the parameter list and the schema's own defaults.

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 two-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers the mechanics but omits the consequences of closing (loss of unsaved data), the XCF destination, and the shape of the returned status dict. Adequate to invoke, not adequate to invoke safely.

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 explain both parameters in prose (index of the image to close with default 0; save as XCF before closing when true). It adds meaning beyond the bare titles, though it doesn't say how to obtain a valid image_index (list_images/get_image_metadata) or where the XCF path comes from.

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?

"Close an image, optionally saving as XCF first" gives a specific verb plus resource, making it easy to separate from siblings like open_image, save_xcf, and export_image. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings (e.g., whether closing with save_first is preferred over save_xcf then close).

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as save_xcf followed by close, and no prerequisites (is an active image context required?). The only conditional hinted at is the save_first flag, which is parameter behavior rather than usage guidance.

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