live_close

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

With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description usefully discloses the failure/requirement condition around unsaved changes and the two escape hatches, information not present in the annotations. It still omits what happens if neither flag is supplied (error vs. silent no-op) and whether the call is idempotent.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the edge case in a trailing clause; every word carries information and nothing is padded.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential action and the one tricky branch. Remaining gaps (acknowledgment that `doc` must reference an already-open document, error behavior) are minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by framing `save` and `discard` as conditional alternatives that only matter when there are unsaved changes — a relationship the schema does not encode. It does not clarify the `engine` parameter, which is already self-documenting.

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 open document'), which is unambiguous on its own and hard to confuse with live_open or live_save. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from any named sibling, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

It states the conditional requirement that unsaved changes need `save` or `discard`, which is useful invocation guidance, but it never says when to call this tool versus alternatives (e.g., live_save first, or undo) or when not to close. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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