Close Drawing

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the save-to-current-path default, the untitled-document data-loss path with a `warning` in headless mode, and the refusal/modal Save dialog in live mode. This is exactly the kind of destructive-consequence detail agents need.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. The middle sentence packing headless/live/untitled/modal behavior is dense and slightly hard to parse on first read.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still flags the `warning` field that matters. Destructive semantics, sibling routing, and the post-close precondition are all covered for a one-parameter 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already says 'Save the drawing before closing', so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what saving actually does (writes to the current path) and what happens when it cannot (untitled document), adding meaning beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Close the active document') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling document_close by naming itself 'the active-document case of document_close'. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use this for the active document versus document_close otherwise, and states the post-condition ('after the last document is closed, call drawing_new or drawing_open before any other tool'). It also carves out behavior for untitled documents in headless vs live environments.

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