Plecs Close

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical context: the refusal is based only on edits made through this MCP session because PLECS exposes no dirty flag, and force=true discards those edits. This is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat an agent needs before invoking a close/discard operation.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the refusal rule and override. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 close tool with an output schema and destructiveHint=true, the description supplies the key behavioral caveat, the guard limitation, and the force override. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains force=true thoroughly in terms of discarding session edits, while model_name is only implicitly defined by 'Close a model' but is self-evident in context. The force parameter is well covered; model_name format could be clearer.

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 and resource ('Close a model') and immediately clarifies scope with 'WITHOUT saving', distinguishing it from sibling tools like plecs_save and plecs_load. It also defines the refusal condition, so the agent can tell exactly what operation this is.

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?

It clearly explains the condition under which the call is refused and the override path via force=true. However, it does not explicitly name plecs_save as the alternative when saving is desired, leaving that routing to inference from the 'WITHOUT saving' phrasing.

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