close_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the need for allowDiscard when modified, implying a destructive action, but does not clarify whether the operation fails or prompts without it, nor does it describe any prerequisites or side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the three parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It covers the key condition for using allowDiscard but does not explain how to resolve target ambiguity or handle failure cases. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description could be more complete for a tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying allowDiscard to the condition of modified documents, but does not elaborate on forceActiveDocument or expectedDocumentName, leaving their semantics mostly to the 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 the action 'Close a document' and adds specificity with conditions about target unambiguity and modified documents. It directly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_document or save_document.

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 usage guidance by noting that the target must be unambiguous and that modified documents require allowDiscard. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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