fusion_close_other_documents

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

The description explicitly discloses the destructive consequence: 'save=false discards their unsaved changes.' This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed and under which condition. The description is consistent with the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and purpose, the second adds the critical parameter consequence. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive bulk operation, the description fully covers what happens, the scope (all other documents), and the risk (unsaved data loss). No output schema exists, and return values are not needed for correct invocation. Complete enough for an agent to use safely.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explicitly explains the behavior of save=false (discards unsaved changes), which is the default and most important case. It only implies save=true behavior, but this is easily inferable and the single parameter is adequately covered.

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 states a specific action ('Close every open document EXCEPT the active one') with a clearly defined resource and scope, making it unmistakable what the tool does. The phrase also differentiates it from siblings like fusion_close_document, which closes a single 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?

The description provides a clear usage context ('handy for tidying up after stray documents accumulated') that helps an agent decide when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope distinction from sibling tools is implicit and sufficient.

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