Close Define-XML Document

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that the operation removes from 'in-memory cache,' implying it does not affect the underlying file, which is valuable behavioral information beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose error handling or side effects on dependent objects.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and target. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. No superfluous information.

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 simplicity (2 parameters with full schema coverage, clear annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the essential action. However, it could provide more detail on error conditions (e.g., invalid document_id) or confirm that repeated calls are safe (idempotent). The annotations already address idempotency, so completeness is slightly above average.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that the document_id identifies the document. The response_format parameter's behavior is already defined in the schema. Hence, the description adds minimal value.

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 specifies the action ('Remove'), the target ('loaded Define-XML document'), and the method ('from in-memory cache by document_id'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (which are get/list/load/reload/search operations) by indicating it is a clean-up or removal operation.

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 usage for removing a loaded document from cache, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites. The sibling tools include many retrieval operations, but no guidance on when close is appropriate is given.

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