close_library

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful rationale that closing frees parts for placement, but it does not say what is lost on close (unsaved edits) or whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the purpose trailing. No waste, though the parenthetical '(saved)' slightly muddies rather than clarifies.

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 one-parameter close operation whose annotations already carry the destructive/idempotent profile, the description is adequate but thin: it leaves the parameter meaning and the fate of unsaved work unexplained.

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?

There is one parameter ('name') with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no semantics. The description never says whether 'name' is the library document name, a part name, or a path, leaving the agent to guess.

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 (close) and resource (an open/saved library document), and adds the consequence 'so its parts can be placed'. It is clearly separable from close_design and from open_library, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the trailing clause about placing parts; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus open_library/close_design, nor any precondition (e.g. whether the library must be currently open).

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