closeProject

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 fails to indicate whether closing is reversible, what state changes occur, or any side effects. The agent has no way to assess the impact of invoking this tool.

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?

While the description is short (two words), this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential information about the tool's functionality and parameters, making it insufficiently helpful.

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's likely destructive nature (closing a project), the absence of an output schema, and the complexity of a nested parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It omits critical details needed for correct usage.

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 schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain parameters. However, it adds nothing about the nested pathParams object, the meaning of format and projectId, or acceptable values. The schema itself defines the structure but the description offers no semantic help.

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 'Close project' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing any additional context or specification of what closing a project entails. It does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like archiveProject or deleteProject.

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 closeProject versus alternatives (e.g., archiveProject, updateProject). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, effects, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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