Close project

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the critical non-obvious consequence: the JSON API only listens while a project is open, so after this call NO tool works until a human reopens a project. That is the single most important behavioral fact for an agent and it is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the irreversibility warning, then the routing and prerequisites. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile (annotations), the hard consequence of calling it, the alternative tool, and the required parameters. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so all three parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'exactly one of saveFirst/discardChanges' constraint and the untitled-project caveat. The description only restates the requirement, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Closes the current project') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling switch-project tools (open_project/new_project) and from quit_archicad by naming them. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer open_project/new_project to switch projects', which is exactly the when-not-to-use guidance. It also states the precondition (confirm: true plus saveFirst or discardChanges), so the agent knows the invocation requirements before calling.

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