project.close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The phrase 'Close tracked project' only gives the action verb without any side effects, permissions, or state changes. It does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires confirmation, which is critical for a closure action.

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, which is concise but under-specified. It earns its place by stating the primary purpose, but for a tool that performs a state-changing action, more detail is needed. The brevity results in gaps that hurt completeness, making it minimally viable but not efficient in conveying necessary 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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what happens when a project is closed (e.g., save behavior, irreversible changes), how to identify the correct project_id, or what the return value is. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool safely and correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema – it does not explain what project_id represents, how to obtain it, or what format it should take. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'close' and the resource 'project', making the immediate purpose obvious. It differentiates this tool from sibling project tools like 'project.create' and 'project.open' by the distinct action. However, the term 'tracked' is slightly ambiguous – it may imply only projects that are currently open/tracked, but this is not explicitly clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that a project must be open first, or that closing a project might save or discard changes. The description offers no context for decision-making, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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