Fechar projeto

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds a specific behavioral detail: 'Com force=true descarta alteracoes nao salvas' (with force=true discards unsaved changes). It also advises confirming with the user before using. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the consequence of the force parameter and the safety step, which is valuable.

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 a single, direct sentence that leads with the primary action and immediately follows with the safety caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple close operation with one boolean parameter, the description covers the core behavior and the force condition. However, it does not clarify what happens when force=false and there are unsaved changes (does it still close? prompt?), nor does it state the result of calling the tool when no project is open. These gaps leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to handle edge cases.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter 'force' with 'Descartar alteracoes nao salvas' (discard unsaved changes). The description repeats this same effect when mentioning force=true, so it adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3 and the description does not significantly elevate it.

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: 'Fecha o projeto aberto no Solibri' (closes the open project in Solibri). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like solibri_save_project or solibri_open_model, and it is unambiguous about the operation performed.

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 provides a caution about force=true but does not give any guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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