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 does not state whether closing prompts to save, whether it discards unsaved changes, or whether it affects other open projects. The behavior is opaque, which is risky for a destructive-like operation.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It is not front-loaded with useful information; it merely restates the tool name. Conciseness is not a virtue when it omits essential context.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description could be complete with a single clear sentence. However, it fails to explain the operational context (e.g., what happens to the current project, whether it saves, whether it's reversible). The description is inadequate for a tool that likely has side effects.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no parameters). The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. No additional semantics are needed.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: close project.' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name without specifying what 'close project' entails (e.g., whether it saves, prompts, or discards changes). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like save_project or open_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open project) or when closing is appropriate (e.g., before opening another project). The description offers no context for usage.

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