Close in Office

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: closing frees the file for write, the application stays unless this server started it and nothing else is open, unsaved copies are left open and reported, and ending the process destroys every unsaved document in it. It also reveals that the user's position is remembered and restored by xlide_open_in_app, adding real operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational weight: the main action is front-loaded, and each subsequent clause addresses a real decision point or side effect. The long paragraph structure is acceptable given the destructive complexity, and no sentence is 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 destructive tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description covers all the important context: when write access is freed, what happens to unsaved work, when process termination is acceptable, the platform restriction, and the restoration behavior via a sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool correctly 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 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds some extra meaning by clarifying that file_path refers to a file currently open in Office and by explaining the precedence relationship among save_changes, discard_changes, and end_process. This is modest but genuinely supplementary, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Closes a file in the Office application the user has it open in.' It immediately distinguishes its scope by stating 'Only that file: the application stays,' which separates it clearly from its sibling xlide_open_in_app. The function's destructive and unlocking role is unmistakable.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: use save_changes first when unsaved work matters, use discard_changes only with user consent, and use end_process only when the application does not answer or the file stays locked, again with user consent. It also names the alternative flow, xlide_open_in_app, for restoring the user's position, and states the Windows-only platform constraint.

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