Close a CATIA document by name or the active one. Discard unsaved changes unless save=true, preventing accidental data loss.
Close a document. Unsaved changes are discarded unless save=true, so check catia_list_documents first if you are unsure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | Save before closing (requires an existing file path). | |
| document | No | Document name to close. Defaults to the active one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses the destructive nature: 'Unsaved changes are discarded unless save=true.' This goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing the discard behavior and the save mitigation. It also advises a safety check, adding valuable behavioral context.
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, direct sentence conveys the core action, the risk, the mitigation, and a safety tip. No filler or redundancy; every part 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?
The description covers the essential behavior (closing, discard, save option) and even guides the user to check document lists. It lacks an output schema, but for a close action, no return value is expected. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (save and document) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.
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 'Close a document' with a specific verb and resource. It also implies the scope by mentioning the save option and pointing to catia_list_documents, distinguishing it from save and open operations. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 suggests checking catia_list_documents first if unsure, which is a usage hint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like catia_save_all or catia_save_document. It gives context for safe use but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.