close_part

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does the most important part: it discloses the destructive consequence (unsaved changes are discarded) and the exact mitigation (save=true, which matches the schema default of false). It omits edge behavior — what happens if no part is open, or whether the file on disk is affected — which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded immediately after the action. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: the operation, its risk, and the controlling flag are all covered. Only minor edge conditions (no part open, disk persistence) are absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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% and the single parameter already carries the description "Save before closing," so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the consequence of the default (false) in a way that adds real decision value, but adds no format or type detail beyond that — baseline 3.

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?

"Close the work part" states a specific verb and resource, and the tool's role is instantly separable from save_part/open_part/new_part in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling or scoping which part qualifies as "the work part," so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when to call it (when finished working on the part) and encodes the key decision — whether to pass save=true — but offers no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives like save_part. Guidance is adequate and implied rather than stated.

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