apple_pages_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 partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the refusal conditions on unsaved changes and unsaved-path documents, and the discardChanges escape hatch.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed immediately by the critical guard condition. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed (unsaved changes), the preconditions, and the override flag. It is largely complete, missing only minor detail on failure/return behavior which is not essential for correct invocation.

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 documented ('exact name returned by list_documents; ambiguous duplicates rejected'), but discardChanges has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining exactly what discardChanges:true does (permits discarding unsaved changes), adding meaning beyond the bare boolean default.

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+resource ('Close one Pages document'), which is unambiguous against siblings like apple_pages_open and apple_pages_save. It hints at differentiation by noting 'save separately to retain changes', though it does not name a sibling outright.

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?

Clearly conveys the operating condition: it refuses unsaved changes or a document lacking a saved path unless discardChanges:true, and points the agent to save first to preserve work. No explicit 'when not to use' framing, but the context for choosing discardChanges vs. saving is clear.

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