close_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key traits: archiving preserves data, does not delete, and is reversible. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but covers the essentials for a close 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every part adds value. It is concise and well-structured with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the effect, preservation of data, and reversibility. Minor details about post-close status are not critical and do not significantly impact completeness.

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 required integer param (project_id) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it. However, the param's meaning is self-evident from the tool name and param name, so the lack of explicit explanation is a minor gap. Schema coverage is 0%, but the simplicity of the param mitigates the need.

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 action ('Close (archive)') and resource ('a project'), and explicitly contrasts with deletion ('without deleting it'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_project. The resource and behavior are unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: the tool archives a project rather than deleting it, and explicitly references reopen_project as the inverse operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives beyond contrasting with deletion.

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