close_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'close project' without explaining whether changes are saved, if a prompt appears, or whether unsaved work is lost. This is a serious gap for a potentially 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 under-specified, not concise. The single sentence adds no information beyond the tool name and includes boilerplate 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' that consumes space without earning its place. A one-line description can be sufficient, but this one lacks substance.

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 project-closing operation with potential loss of unsaved changes, the description is inadequate. It fails to mention save behavior, confirmation dialogs, or the effect on other open projects. The lack of annotations and output schema makes this omission more critical, as the agent has no other context.

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 the schema confirms this with no defined properties. Since no parameters exist, the description need not explain them, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The odd schema with additionalProperties does not create a need for parameter explanation.

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 essentially a restatement of the tool name 'close_project' with no additional detail. It identifies the resource but fails to differentiate from similar operations like close_sequence or close_source_monitor, providing no unique value.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_project, open_project, or close_sequence. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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