close_model

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'with option to save' but fails to explain what happens if not saved (e.g., unsaved changes lost), whether confirmation dialogs appear, or if the operation is irreversible. This lack of detail is critical for a potentially destructive action.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading the key action and separating the option mention for clarity.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core function but omits context about the model's state (e.g., must be active) and does not describe return behavior. Given the broader toolset, it meets basic completeness but lacks depth.

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 covers the single parameter 'save' with full description. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'option to save', but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 phrase 'Close the current model' clearly identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'open_model'. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes the 'current model' (e.g., active document, assembly, part).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate prerequisites or post-conditions. For example, it does not mention that the model must be open first or that other tools might conflict.

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