project_close

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'close' without indicating whether unsaved changes are discarded, if a confirmation dialog appears, or if the project is saved first. This is critical missing information.

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, direct sentence. It is concise, but additional context about behavior could have been added without becoming verbose. It is appropriately sized for a simple action.

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 lack of parameters and output schema, the description should provide more context about side effects, safety, and prerequisites. It fails to inform the agent about what happens to the project state, making it incomplete for safe execution.

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 are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not introduce confusion. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 a specific action ('Close') on a specific resource ('the current Audacity project'). It is distinct from sibling tools like project_new, project_open, project_save, etc., which cover different project operations.

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, such as prerequisites (e.g., unsaved changes) or situations to avoid. There is no comparison with alternatives like project_save or project_save_as.

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