teamleader_projects_close

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect 'markeert het project als gesloten', but this largely restates the meaning of 'close'. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or consequences of closing a project.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and explicitly notes the side effect, making it appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 one-parameter close operation, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context, parameter clarification, and any mention of prerequisites or behavior after closing, leaving the agent to infer these from the tool name and sibling tools.

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 has one parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning or format. The resource name 'project' implies id refers to a project id, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the 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?

The description 'Sluit een nextgen-project' uses a specific verb (sluit) and resource (nextgen-project), clearly indicating a close operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like teamleader_projects_reopen, teamleader_projects_delete, and teamleader_projects_update.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like projects_update or projects_delete. The description does not state prerequisites, conditions for closing, or exclusions.

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