plc_ide_close_active

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile, and the description goes well beyond them: UAC requirement, identity matching, native editor flush, the single UserCloseSolution invocation, required close events plus a later empty-solution snapshot for verification, that save prompts are never answered, and that timeout behavior is unknown without retry. Refusing dirty state is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the core action and every sentence carries information, but the phrasing is heavily compressed jargon ('a completed native editor flush, and a clean model') that an uninitiated agent must parse, and the long single block would read better split into preconditions, behavior, and exclusions.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers preconditions, refusal states, execution path, and verification. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail, which is entirely absent from the schema and only partially covered by the identity-matching sentence.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that process-start and solution identities must match the current context, which is real semantic value for all three parameters, but it never explains the expected format or provenance of process_started_utc, solution_id, or process_id beyond that identity check.

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 verb 'Close' and the resource 'expected active normal imported Sysmac solution' are both stated, and the closing sentence enumerates what the tool does NOT do (save, export, compile, import, operate a PLC), which separates it from the sibling export/rebuild/import tools. The dense qualifier stack ('normal imported', 'expected active') is specific but assumes domain vocabulary, so it stops short of a clean 5.

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?

Strong when-not guidance: file mode, AutoConnect, save suppression, dirty state, importing, or changed context are all explicitly refused, and 'Close only the expected active' bounds the use case. It never names an alternative sibling to use instead when those preconditions fail, which keeps it from a 5.

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