Close Document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: closing discards unsaved work without a prompt (explicitly contrasted with the GUI), unsaved documents are refused unless force is set, and C4D's one-document minimum means the last close leaves a fresh empty document active. These are exactly the behavioral surprises an agent needs before invoking a destructive close.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: action/identification, force/discard semantics, and the last-document edge case. No redundancy with the schema and 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 destructive, conditional tool with three parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers every decision point: target selection, exclusivity, unsaved-change handling, and the edge case. Only the success-response format goes unmentioned, which is minor for a close operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the critical exclusivity constraint — 'Pass exactly one of the two' — that the schema's individual property descriptions cannot express, and ties index directly to list_documents output.

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 and resource — 'Close an open document' — and clearly anchors identification to list_documents output. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like open_document, new_document, and save_document.

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 invocation guidance: pass exactly one of index or name, source the index from list_documents, and use force:true as the escape hatch for unsaved changes. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., save_document) as the when-not-to-use path, but the context is otherwise clear.

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