Close unit of work

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, explaining the lock release and that the default path discards the working copy while the stored pool is untouched. That is the key data-loss semantics an agent needs before calling with the default.

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, no filler, and the irreversible default behavior is stated immediately after the core action. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation/lock/discard behavior is covered. A minor gap remains around preconditions (must an edit session be open, what happens if none is) given openWorldHint=true.

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 schema already documents the single boolean, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by spelling out the consequence of omitting save (working copy discarded, stored pool unchanged), which is the semantics that actually drives the parameter choice.

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?

Specific verb ('Closes') plus resource ('the unit of work') with an explicit side-effect (releases the lock), which distinguishes it from the save sibling in the same edit session. It does not name the sibling tools (edit_open / edit_save) as alternatives, so alignment still requires a little inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the open/save/close family and by the save:true note, but the description never states when to close versus when to save first, nor that uncommitted edits are lost unless save:true. An agent must infer the workflow from the tool name and sibling list.

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