oss_repo_close

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key non-destructive behavior — the ledger and clone are preserved, so follow-up analysis is possible — which is genuinely useful for judging safety. But it omits idempotency (safe to call twice?), error behavior for unknown/closed projects, and whether in-flight operations are terminated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical non-deletion guarantee. Nothing is wasted, though it could be tightened slightly by naming the project_id parameter alongside the action.

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 teardown tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important consequence (artifacts survive) but leaves the parameter unexplained and error behavior unspecified. An agent could call it correctly but would be guessing about failure modes.

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% and the single required parameter project_id is never mentioned in the description. With only one parameter it is guessable, but the description adds no meaning about how the ID is obtained (e.g., from oss_repo_list or oss_repo_open) or what happens if it is stale.

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 action and target: closing the language server and DB connection. The parenthetical clarifies that persisted artifacts (ledger, clone) survive, which separates it from destructive cleanup semantics. It doesn't explicitly name oss_repo_open as its counterpart, but the intent is unambiguous against siblings like oss_repo_status.

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?

Usage is implied — call this when finishing with a project — and the note that analysis can resume next time hints at the reopen path. However, there is no explicit 'when to call this vs when not to', no statement about prerequisites (must a repo be open first?), and no mention of what happens on an invalid project_id.

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