close_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the save parameter's effect, but it does not warn about data loss when save=False or describe behavior when no document is active. This is a notable omission for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single purpose line and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. However, it lacks important safety context (e.g., unsaved changes are lost when save=False) and does not address edge cases like no active document. Given no annotations, these gaps make it incomplete.

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 description clearly explains the 'save' parameter ('If True, save before closing; If False, close without saving'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. However, it does not elaborate on what 'save' means in the Revit context (e.g., local save vs. central file).

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 'Close the active Revit document' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like open_document and save_document.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (closing the active document), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Its primary purpose is self-evident.

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