femm_close_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: both pre- and post-processor documents are closed, and the engine/session survives. However, it does not say whether unsaved changes are discarded or whether the call errors when nothing is open, which matters for 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The scope of the close is front-loaded, and the sequencing note follows immediately; every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is closed and what to do next, which is most of what an agent needs. It is still incomplete on the session parameter and on the fate of unsaved work, the two gaps most likely to cause a wrong invocation.

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 never mentions the 'session' parameter at all. The highest-value information here — that closing applies to a named session defaulting to 'main' — is left entirely to the raw schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: closing the 'current pre-processor document and its post-processor (if any)'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from femm_session_close by noting 'the engine keeps running', making the scope of the close operation unambiguous. It stops just short of naming the sibling it differs from explicitly.

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 gives clear forward guidance: 'call femm_new_document or femm_open next', naming both alternatives for the follow-up step. There is no explicit when-not condition (e.g. unsaved-changes behavior), but the sequencing context is unusually concrete for a close tool.

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