close_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the close operation is destructive, whether unsaved changes are handled, what close_mode does, or any side effects. The only nuance is 'selected or active', which is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (single sentence), which is structurally fine, but it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative. It front-loads the core action but omits essential details, so it earns a mid-score for brevity without depth.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, behavioral outcomes, or error conditions. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the save, close_mode, or document_id parameters. The agent has no semantic understanding of these fields from the description, relying entirely on the schema names which are ambiguous.

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 clearly states the action (close) and the resource (document), specifying 'selected or active' which distinguishes from other document operations. It is not a tautology and gives a specific scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like open_document.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the generic phrase.

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