document_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does the most important part: it warns that unsaved changes are discarded and names the flag that prevents that loss. It leaves unstated what happens afterward (whether another document becomes active, or what is returned), which keeps it below a 5.

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 zero waste, and the destructive default is placed where it will be read rather than buried. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential risk (data loss) and the escape hatch. It is only slightly short on post-close state, which matters little for correct invocation.

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% and the single parameter `save` has no description, but the prose explains its effect (save=true preserves changes, default discards). That covers the semantics, though it does not state the default explicitly or what a save failure would mean for the close.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Close the active document"), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like document_open, document_new, or save_document. It does not explicitly contrast itself with save_document, which also concerns the active document, so it falls short of a 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?

Usage is only implied by the action itself — an agent can infer it closes whatever document is currently active. There is no statement of when to prefer save_document instead, nor any note that another document must be activated first if a different one should be closed.

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