close_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses a key safety-relevant behavior: unsaved changes cause a refusal unless discard_changes is explicitly true. It also limits the action to the current document, but does not describe return values, errors, or post-close state.

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 short sentences with no filler. The critical scope qualifier is front-loaded, and the conditional unsaved-changes behavior is stated immediately, making the description easy to parse and apply.

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 two-parameter close operation, the description covers the purpose, the scope, and the main safety-relevant edge case (unsaved changes). It could mention error handling or what happens on success, but the essential invocation knowledge is present.

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 explains discard_changes by linking it to unsaved changes and requiring it to be 'explicitly true', but it does not clarify the handle parameter beyond what the schema's type and title already imply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') with a clear resource ('this document') and adds a scope qualifier ('only') that distinguishes it from operations like save_document or open_document. An agent immediately knows what action the tool performs.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use close_document versus alternatives such as open_document or save_document. The phrase 'this document only' provides scope but not usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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