close_project

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

Description discloses the key behavioral nuance: unsaved changes are discarded when save=False. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for transparency. It does not mention what happens after close, but the basic behavior is covered.

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, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: first sentence states the action, second explains the parameter's impact.

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 tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention the post-close state (e.g., no project open), but that is inferable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the save parameter and its effect on unsaved changes. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states the tool closes the open project, with an optional save before closing. Verb 'close' and resource 'open project' are specific and align with sibling tools like open_project 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?

Usage is implied: use when you want to close the project. However, no explicit contrast with alternatives like save_project or new_project is provided, nor is there guidance on when not to use.

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