close_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining the consequences of closing (e.g., unsaved changes may be discarded if 'save' is false). The parameter schema partially addresses this by describing 'save', but the description itself omits critical safety information for a destructive 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple action. While it could be expanded to include behavioral context without becoming verbose, its brevity is a strength in terms of readability.

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 that performs a potentially destructive action (closing a project), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens to unsaved work, whether the user is prompted, or what the tool's return value indicates. The parameter schema offers a hint, but the description itself fails to provide a complete picture of the tool's behavior and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'save' parameter has a description: 'Save before closing'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With full coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance or clarify parameter semantics further.

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 'Close the current project' clearly identifies the action (close) and the resource (project), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project, open_project, and save_project. It is specific enough to convey the primary intent, though it could benefit from mentioning what 'close' entails (e.g., whether unsaved changes are lost).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_project or get_project_info. No context is provided about prerequisites (e.g., having an open project) or when it is appropriate to close without saving. The description offers no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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