close_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Close the current project' without specifying what happens to unsaved changes, whether confirmation is required, or whether the operation is reversible. The existence of a 'save' parameter implies optional saving, but the description does not explain the default or the consequence of not saving.

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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero extraneous information. Every word is earned for a simple close action.

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?

Tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema) but description fails to specify return behavior, side effects (e.g., unsaved data handling), or post-close state. Without output schema, agent needs to know what the tool returns or signals failure, which is absent.

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 is 100% for the single 'save' parameter, which already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance for the parameter. Per criteria, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden, but the description does not enhance understanding.

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 states 'Close the current project' with a clear verb-resource pair. It immediately conveys the action and target. While it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, the action is distinct enough (close vs. open, save, create) that purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_project or open_project. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open) or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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