ass_close

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return envelope and the 'known path' precondition for saving, but omits the single most important behavior for a close tool: what happens to unsaved changes when save=false. Listing return fields adds little here since an output schema already exists.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then compact Args/Returns blocks. The trailing 'Line indices are 0-based' is copy-paste boilerplate irrelevant to a close operation, a small amount of dead weight.

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 two-parameter lifecycle tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and preconditions. The only real gap is the unsaved-changes/discard semantics, which an agent would want before closing a dirty document.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: doc_id is defined as the target document defaulting to the current one, and save is defined with its precondition. Both parameters are covered clearly, though no mention of error behavior when the path is unknown.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (close a document) and adds the optional-save nuance, which is enough to distinguish it from ass_open, ass_save, and ass_save_all. It stops just short of 5 because it never names a sibling or the boundary with ass_save + ass_close done separately.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: doc_id defaults to the current document and save 'requires a known path'. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, e.g. whether to prefer ass_save followed by ass_close for untitled documents.

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