photoshop_close_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool closes the active document but does not warn that closing without saving (save=false, the default) will discard unsaved changes. This is a potentially destructive operation that should be flagged. Additionally, it does not explain the side effect of activating a document when document_id is provided. The description lacks critical behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It states the core action immediately and contains no filler. This is an example of appropriate conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's destructive potential (closing without saving) and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the default behavior of the save parameter, the risk of data loss, or the effect of document_id on activation. An agent needs this context to use the tool safely and correctly. The schema provides parameter details, but the description should summarize the behavioral implications, which it fails to do.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters (save and document_id) with descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3. The description does not enhance parameter understanding, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Close the active Photoshop document'. It specifies the verb (close) and the resource (active Photoshop document), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like photoshop_save_document (which saves without closing) and photoshop_set_active_document (which only changes active state). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for closing a document while photoshop_save_document is for saving, or that setting document_id activates a document first. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, and the only usage hint comes from the parameter schema, which is not part of the description. The agent is left to infer the use case.

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