close_part

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the primary behavior—closing without saving—which implies unsaved changes are lost. It also mentions 'export/save first if needed' as a caution. It doesn't disclose potential prompts or reversibility, but for a close operation the key behavior is transparent. A 4 is appropriate.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key caveat. Every word earns its place; no wasted language. Perfectly concise.

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 simple close tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action and the save caveat. It doesn't describe what happens after closing (e.g., no return value) but that's not essential. It adequately covers the essential context for an agent to invoke it correctly. Score 4.

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 schema has one boolean parameter 'save' with default false and no description. The description's phrase 'without saving' explains the default behavior but does not clarify what happens if save=true (e.g., whether it saves before closing). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more fully, but it provides partial meaning. Score 3.

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 states a clear action ('Close') and specific resource ('current part or assembly'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from save operations by adding 'without saving'. This is a specific verb+resource that clearly differentiates from siblings like save_part and open_part.

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 provides clear context: it closes without saving, and advises to 'export/save first if needed', which implies when not to use this tool (if you need to save). It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly but gives a practical condition. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, earning a 4.

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