Close Document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a two-call confirmation pattern where the first call 'changes nothing'. It still doesn't disclose what happens to unsaved changes or whether the save parameter triggers a commit.

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 zero filler, purpose front-loaded ahead of the confirmation requirement. The phrasing 'which changes nothing' is slightly ambiguous but the structure is efficient.

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 need not be described, and the confirm-token flow is covered. However, for a destructive mutation with 0% parameter documentation, the description omits what 'save' does and the consequence of closing with unsaved work.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only explains confirm_token, leaving save, document, and process_id undocumented in both schema and description — roughly one of four parameters covered.

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+resource ('Close a background document'), and the 'background' qualifier narrows scope meaningfully against siblings like revit_open_document and revit_save_document. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it contrasts with, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Implies a required two-step flow ('Needs confirm_token from a first call'), which tells the agent how to invoke it, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as revit_save_document or revit_close_views. The invocation prerequisite is useful but not full usage guidance.

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