Close a GDevelop project session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral context by stating that it 'stop[s] previews' and 'release[s] its C++/Wasm project handle,' which reveals the nature of the resource being cleaned up and the side effect on previews—information beyond a simple destructive flag.

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 concise sentence of 13 words, front-loading the primary action ('Stop previews') followed by the secondary effect ('release its C++/Wasm project handle'). Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted content.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and destructive annotations, the description gives a clear summary of the main effects. However, it omits relevant context such as whether unsaved changes are saved or discarded, what happens if the project is already closed, or whether the operation is reversible. These gaps are notable for a destructive operation.

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 must compensate for explaining the parameter. However, the description does not mention projectId at all. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory (the UUID of the project to close), the description omits any explicit mapping of the parameter to the action, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's format and property name.

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's action: 'Stop previews for a project and release its C++/Wasm project handle.' It uses specific verbs ('stop', 'release') and identifies the resource ('a project'), distinguishing it from siblings like open_project (creates a session) and stop_preview (likely only stops previews without releasing the handle).

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 implies usage (closing a project session when done), but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It does not contrast with sibling tools like stop_preview or save_project, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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