apple_numbers_close

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the exact refusal conditions and how discardChanges:true overrides them, which tells the agent what would be lost.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the failure conditions and the override flag. No filler and every clause carries 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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, refusal conditions, the discard flag, and the save-first workflow. It does not say what a successful close returns or whether other open documents are affected, but those are minor gaps.

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%: documentName is well documented in the schema, while discardChanges has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that discardChanges:true is what permits closing with unsaved changes, adding the missing semantics.

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 ('Close one Numbers document') and scopes it to a single document. It implicitly routes to apple_numbers_save with 'save separately to retain changes', but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for failure (unsaved changes or no saved path) and names the alternative action (save first). Strong conditional guidance, though the alternative is described functionally rather than by tool name, and there is no guidance on when to keep a document open instead of closing.

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