close_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that unsaved changes are discarded when save=False, which is the most important side effect of this action. It does not cover edge cases like closing when no project is open, but the core destructive behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important caveat about unsaved changes appears immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the parameter semantics well. It lacks only a small amount of context about alternatives or what happens if no project is currently open, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage for parameters is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'save' parameter. It does: 'optionally saving first' and 'Unsaved changes are discarded when save=False' provide meaningful semantics beyond the raw boolean/default. It could have explicitly stated that save=True saves before closing, but the meaning is strongly implied.

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 clearly states the action ('Close') and the resource ('the open project'), and it adds the optional save-first behavior, which differentiates this from save-only or open operations. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to distinguish itself, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies when to use this tool — when the goal is to close the open project — and it explains the save=False consequence. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives like save_project for saving without closing, or open_project for opening a different project, so the usage boundaries are left to inference.

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