project_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral facts: a JVM is freed and the saved .ioc file is untouched. However, it omits preconditions (must the project be open?), whether unsaved in-memory state is discarded, and whether the operation is reversible or idempotent.

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?

A single focused sentence with the core action front-loaded and the key caveat in parentheses. No filler text.

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 one-parameter lifecycle tool this is close, but the description leaves out the precondition that the project be currently open and what happens to unsaved changes in the warm engine. No output schema exists, so return behavior is also unstated.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines project_id. The description adds no further parameter semantics such as whether the ID must reference a currently loaded project, so 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 ('Close the warm engine of a project') and clarifies the effect. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like project_delete or project_save, but the 'warm engine/JVM' framing is distinctive enough to separate it from those tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and effect: use to release engine resources. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated precondition (e.g. project must be open), and no mention of alternatives such as project_delete for removing a project entirely.

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