ps_close_document

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals that the close happens without saving, which warns the agent that unsaved changes may be discarded. It does not elaborate on irreversibility or behavior when no document is active, but for a one-line tool this is a meaningful and mostly sufficient disclosure.

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 entire description is a single short sentence that front-loads the action, target, and the critical no-save qualifier. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name beyond what is natural.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the target document and the side-effect (no save). An agent has enough information to invoke ps_close_document correctly without needing return-value or parameter details.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description appropriately ignores parameters entirely.

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 uses a specific verb ('关闭' / close), names the exact resource ('Photoshop 当前活动文档' / current active Photoshop document), and states the key qualifier '不保存' (without saving). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ai_close_document and from save-then-close workflows.

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 intended use is implied by the wording: close the current active Photoshop document without saving. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., ps_save_as_* followed by ps_close_document) or names any sibling tool, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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