close

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds the side effect of clearing the context, which is beyond the annotations, but does not clarify whether changes are saved or discarded, or if the action is reversible. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate; more detail would be better for a state-changing operation.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the secondary effect. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior. However, given the large set of sibling tools, it lacks context about when to use 'close' versus alternatives like 'save' or 'delete'. The description is functional but not rich enough for an agent to confidently choose it in all relevant scenarios.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. As per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it doesn't. This is fully adequate.

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 action ('Close the current diagram and clear the context'), which is specific and unambiguous. It identifies the resource (diagram) and the extra behavior (clearing context). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'save' or 'delete', though the action is distinct enough that the purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'save', 'new_bpmn', or 'delete_diagram_file'. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be chosen. With many sibling tools, an agent is left to infer when closing is appropriate.

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