nx_close_part

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It states the action and the save option, but does not disclose that closing without saving (save=false) discards unsaved changes, that the operation may fail if no part is active, or that it is a destructive action. These are significant gaps for a state-changing tool.

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 leads with the primary action and immediately clarifies the optional behavior. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover error conditions (e.g., what happens if there is no active part), side effects (e.g., unsaved data loss when save=false), or any confirmation/return behavior. While the tool is simple, the description should disclose at least the destructive implication of not saving, which it fails to do.

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 single 'save' parameter is well-named and its type (boolean) and default (true) are self-explanatory. The description references the option to save, which maps directly to the parameter, but adds no further meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description partially compensates, but the semantics are still evident from the schema itself, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Close') and a specific resource ('active work part'), and states the optional save behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nx_save_part (which only saves) and nx_open_part (which opens), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for ending work on a part, nor does it contrast with nx_save_part or nx_open_part. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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