cst_close_project_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important trait (the CST session survives), but says nothing about whether unsaved project changes are discarded, whether a save prompt occurs, or whether the call fails if no project is active — all critical for a close/destroy 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?

A single eight-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a state-mutating close operation with no annotations and no parameter surface, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs to know: what happens to unsaved work.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially covered, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Close the active project') and adds a scope clause ('without quitting CST') that implicitly separates it from the cst_quit_tool and cst_open_project_tool siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the intent is 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 phrase 'without quitting CST' implies the usage context (tear down the project while keeping the session alive), which is reasonable inferred guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over cst_quit_tool, cst_new_project_tool, or cst_save_project_tool, nor any prerequisite like saving first.

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