chemdraw_close_working_document

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's emphasis on 'back up' adds context that the operation includes a backup step, which is beneficial. However, it doesn't explain the behavior of refusal in detail (e.g., what happens if you try to close a non-working document), and it doesn't mention any side effects like unsaved changes or locks. With destructiveHint true, the description should have explained that it saves changes as part of the backup, but it's adjacent.

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, with one sentence that front-loads the main action ('Back up and close') and then states the constraint. It is well-structured and easy to parse, 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?

Given the tool has only 1 parameterable, no output schema, and complex annotations (destructive), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and a key constraint, but it lacks details on how to handle the refusal, what the response looks like, and whether any confirmation is needed. With destructiveHint true, more information about the backup process or rollback would be warranted.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the document_id parameter beyond its type and requirement, but the description's mention of 'document opened by this server session' implies that document_id must refer to such a document. However, it doesn't explain how to find the correct ID (e.g., via list_documents), which is a gap. But for a single parameter, the description partially clarifies the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool backs up and closes a document opened by the current server session, and that it refuses other documents. This is specific about the action and scope, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools that might also close documents (though none seem to close). It is clear and actionable.

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 implies that it should be used for documents opened by this server session and not for others, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the document being currently open. There is no mention of when not to use it beyond the refusal, which is a constraint rather than a usage guideline.

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