Close Project

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses specific destructive behaviors: dropping the in-memory board and clearing session state. It also explains the motivation (avoid clobbering external edits) and notes the optional save behavior, adding valuable context not present in annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the usage rationale. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: the first explains what it does, the second explains why and when to use it. No wasted words.

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 annotations (destructiveHint=true) and the full parameter schema plus output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the action, the rationale, and the consequence. It covers the key behaviors without needing to repeat return values or parameter details.

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 100% with each parameter (save, force, forceExternalChanges) documented in detail. The tool description itself does not add parameter information, but it doesn't need to; the schema fully covers parameter semantics, meeting the baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Close the currently loaded KiCAD project' and elaborates the consequence: 'drop the in-memory board and clear session state.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_project, open_board, or reload_board.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to hand control back so the user (or the agent) can edit project files directly without the MCP later clobbering those changes on save.' This provides a clear use case and implies when not to use (when you want to continue editing via MCP).

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