close_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key refusal behavior and the flag override, which is valuable, but it doesn't say whether discarding is permanent, whether close is reversible, or what permissions or failure modes apply.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the key guardrail. 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?

The tool is simple, has only one boolean parameter, and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential call behavior and the main failure condition; only deeper mutation/safety context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'unless discard_unsaved=true' explains the effect of the only parameter in context, which is meaningfully beyond the bare name and default in 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Close the open project'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_project or open_project. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It implies when the tool is usable ('open project') and when the flag is required ('refuses unsaved work unless discard_unsaved=true'), but it does not guide the agent to save_project instead of discarding, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the open-project implication.

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