Close Document

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying that closing discards unsaved work, the tool refuses without force, and C4D always keeps at least one document open. It discloses the edge case of closing the last document, which is valuable behavioral information an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences with every sentence earning its place: how to identify the document, the force behavior and data-loss warning, and the last-document edge case. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers all key behaviors an agent needs: parameter selection rules, unsaved-change handling, force semantics, and the always-at-least-one-document behavior. With no output schema and a single destructive action, this is sufficient context for correct invocation and user-disclosure.

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 schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds critical constraint that exactly one of `index` or `name` must be passed, which is not captured by the schema's required fields. This is meaningful extra guidance, though not extensive.

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 tool closes an open document, with the precise mechanism of identification (list `index` or `name`) and the constraints. It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like open_document, new_document, and 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 clear operational guidance: pass exactly one identifier, use `force:true` only to discard unsaved changes, and be aware that closing the last document leaves an empty one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when to prefer save_document over close, so it slightly misses the 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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