close_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether unsaved changes trigger a save prompt, whether the project is unloaded from memory, or what side effects occur on sequences, bins, or source monitors. For a state-changing operation this is a critical omission.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. The single clause adds no information beyond the tool name and provides no contextual value to earn its place.

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 state-changing project operation with no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral context, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot predict side effects such as save prompts or the resulting application state, and no comparison with close_sequence or save_project is offered.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the 0-params baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties: true places no burden on the description.

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 "Premiere Pro expanded operation: close project" restates the tool name almost verbatim. The generic "Premiere Pro expanded operation" prefix is boilerplate that could apply to any tool in the set and does not distinguish close_project from siblings like close_sequence or save_project. It names a verb and resource but only by parroting the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous project-management siblings (open_project, create_project, save_project, save_project_as, close_sequence), an agent has no information about the appropriate context for closing a project or what differentiates it from closing a sequence.

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