Close ICC Plus project

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

The annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds that this closes an in-memory session and that unsaved sessions require force=true. It stops short of explicitly disclosing that forcing will discard unsaved changes or what exactly happens to the session state, so the added behavioral context is useful but incomplete.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the force requirement is presented as a concise, necessary caveat.

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 that this is a destructive, mutating operation with no output schema, the description is not complete enough for safe invocation. It fails to explain expected_revision, the consequences of force, or any return/error behavior, which are important for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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 parameter meaning. It does clarify the force parameter's key condition, but it gives no guidance on project_id's role and completely omits expected_revision, which is likely a concurrency guard and is left unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('in-memory session'), and the title clarifies the resource is the ICC Plus project. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like open_project, save_project, and read_project.

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 when to use the tool: when closing an in-memory session, with the additional condition that unsaved sessions require force=true. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with save_project or any alternative, nor does it say when closing without force is appropriate.

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