gimp_close_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior — that no saving occurs — which is important for a close operation. But it does not mention that the image is unloaded/closed, that unsaved changes are lost, or whether the operation is reversible or destructive, leaving gaps in the behavioral picture.

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 sentence with every word carrying weight. It front-loads the action and key qualifier, making it maximally concise and easily parsed for an AI agent.

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 close operation with one integer parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits important context: no usage guidelines, no behavioral side-effects beyond 'without saving', and no explanation of the return value or post-condition of the image handle. The output schema may cover return values, but the description alone leaves notable gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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% and the description does not compensate by explaining the image_id parameter. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the description provides no explicit mapping between 'an image' and the image_id property, nor any constraints or format hints. With low coverage, the description should add some parameter context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') with a clear resource ('an image') and adds the critical qualifier 'without saving'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like gimp_export, implying no persistence of changes. It is unambiguous about the operation's purpose.

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 phrase 'without saving' implies this tool is appropriate when the user does not want to persist changes, which contrasts with export tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, or mention any prerequisites or side conditions, leaving usage to inference.

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