LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a cleanup operation that releases resources and specifically mentions temp files from format bridging. This gives the agent important context about side effects and resource management that isn't obvious from the tool name alone.

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?

Single sentence that's perfectly front-loaded with the core action, followed by important parenthetical clarification about resource release. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted verbiage.

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 single-parameter cleanup tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its behavioral implications. The mention of temp files from format bridging adds valuable specificity. However, it doesn't address potential error conditions or confirmations, which would be helpful for a destructive-sounding operation.

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 schema already documents the single parameter completely. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (docId is described as 'Document handle returned by document_open' in both places). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Close') and target resource ('an open document'), distinguishing it from siblings like document_save (persist changes) or document_open (acquire handle). It explicitly mentions releasing resources, which is unique to this tool among document operations.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'an open document' and referencing 'document handle returned by document_open', clearly indicating this tool should be used after document_open. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. document_save for saving changes) or name alternatives for related cleanup operations.

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