Closes the current Premiere Pro project and optionally saves changes first, so you can end a session or switch projects without leaving unsaved edits.
Close the current project (with optional save)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | Whether to save before closing (default: true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It implies saving is optional but never says whether unsaved changes are discarded, whether the user is prompted, whether closing is reversible, or what errors occur when no project is open.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The parenthetical is slightly ambiguous but compact.
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 project-closing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the critical data-safety semantics (discard vs. prompt when save=false) and assumptions about an active project. These gaps matter more than the simple single-parameter schema.
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 single 'save' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including its default, and the description's '(with optional save)' aligns with that. Nothing is added beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 and resource ('Close the current project'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like save_project, save_project_as, and open_project. The parenthetical clarifies the save option but the scope of 'current project' is left implicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus save_project/open_project, no preconditions (must a project be open?), and no mention of what happens when save=false. The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.