Close Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new post-condition context: it verifies the project is no longer open and reports which project becomes active, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then qualifies scope and post-conditions. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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's complexity is low, annotations plus an output schema carry the return-value burden, and the description covers scope and post-state behavior. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any note about the save-before-close consequence of save_first.

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%, so both parameters (save_first, project_path) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description only restates the project_path default (active project) and adds nothing about save_first's save-before-close behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (close) on a specific resource (an open Premiere Pro project) and defines the two scopes it operates on: the active project or the one at project_path. This is easily distinguished from siblings like close_sequence, close_all_source_clips, and save_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 makes the selection condition explicit (active project vs. the project at project_path), so an agent knows which target it will act on, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over save_project/save_project_as or on prerequisites such as unsaved work being discarded.

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