close_unsaved

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that documents are closed without saving and that referenced documents are preserved, but it does not mention whether unsaved documents are irreversibly lost, whether confirmation is required, or what happens if closing fails.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior before the Args section. The examples of unsaved documents and the include_active explanation are useful, with little wasted text.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior, the preservation rule, and the non-schema-documented include_active parameter. The instance parameter is handled by the schema, and return values are covered by the output schema.

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 50%: the instance parameter is documented in the schema, while include_active has no schema description. The description compensates for that gap by explaining include_active, but it does not add anything about the instance parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb and resource: close documents that were never saved, without saving. It also clarifies an important exception, namely that documents referenced by another open document are kept, which makes the tool's scope more precise than the name alone.

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 implies a cleanup use case through the phrase 'left by failed attempts' and explains when to set include_active. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as save_document, list_documents, or activate_document, nor does it state when not to use it.

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