cerrar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the important default: closing discards changes unless saving is requested. It does not say what happens on an unknown or already-closed document, whether an error is raised, or what the response contains.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the default behavior and the scope limit. Nothing is redundant, though the phrasing is terse enough to leave gaps.

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?

A close-without-saving operation is potentially destructive and has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain failure modes and whether unsaved work is silently lost. It covers the default behavior but leaves those operational questions open.

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%: documento is documented in the schema, guardar is not. The description partially compensates by stating the default is no-save, which explains what guardar=true would do, but it adds no further detail on the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Cierra una presentación de Atril") and adds a scope exclusion ("No cierra presentaciones del usuario") that separates it from presentation-editing siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling such as guardar, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"por defecto sin guardar" and "No cierra presentaciones del usuario" imply when the tool applies and what it will not touch, but there is no explicit guidance on calling guardar first or on handling unsaved work. Usage must be inferred.

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