Close Document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful process context beyond that: a confirmationText must be surfaced and an explicit approval step gates the retry with the token, which is valuable for a destructive 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?

Two tight sentences with the operation stated first and the confirmation flow second. No redundant restatement of the name/title, though 'confirmationText' appears without definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But with 0% parameter description coverage and an unclear `save` flag (whether closing persists changes), the description leaves gaps for a destructive mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for four parameters. It only illuminates one (confirm_token, via the retry-with-token instruction) and leaves `save`, `document`, and `process_id` entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close a background document') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like revit_open_document, revit_save_document, and revit_sync_document. The 'background document' scope adds useful precision, though it doesn't explain what a background document is.

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 gives a concrete workflow condition – only retry with the token after explicit chat approval – which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer closing vs. saving first, nor how it relates to sibling tools like save_document or sync_document.

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