close_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the action is non-destructive and reversible via reopen_project, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or internal behavior. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences total—first defines the action with key nuance, second points to the sibling tool for restoration. No redundancy, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core purpose and distinguishes from siblings. Could note return value or status, but not essential for basic invocation.

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 shows one required parameter (projectId, number) with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning about the parameter—no guidance on what projectId refers to or how to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool archives (closes) a project without deleting it, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from delete_project by emphasizing 'without deleting' and from reopen_project by naming the sibling.

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 says when to use this tool (to archive without delete) and mentions the alternative reopen_project for restoration. Lacks discussion of prerequisites or when not to use, but for a simple archiving action, it's sufficiently clear.

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