eda_dmt_editor_control_close_document

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

The description states the return value ('Promise<boolean>', '操作是否成功') and the core side effect of closing a document. With no annotations, it does not disclose important behavioral details such as handling of unsaved changes or whether a specific tab is required, leaving the safety profile incomplete.

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?

Three short lines carry the signature, the action, and the return meaning without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place and the essential info is front-loaded.

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 close operation, the core semantics are present, but the wrapper schema (args array, optional windowId) is never tied to a concrete invocation. The description also omits how to determine the tabId and any behavior around unsaved work, so an agent has to infer too much.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the method signature with tabId:string and the schema explains args are in official signature order, but neither explains what a tabId refers to beyond its obvious name.

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 the exact API signature 'dmt_EditorControl.closeDocument(tabId: string)' and the Chinese '关闭文档', clearly identifying the action and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling controls such as open_document or activate_document, so it stops one step short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that closing a document is the use case.

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