project_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether closing prompts to save unsaved changes (destructive potential), whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to the project state after closure. This is a significant gap for a lifecycle management 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 exactly one short sentence with zero redundancy. It is perfectly front-loaded with the action and target, wasting no words. Appropriate for a parameter-less tool.

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?

While the description covers the basic operation for a simple tool with no parameters or output schema, it is incomplete regarding safety-critical context. Given that closing a project can result in data loss if unsaved, and given the presence of project_save siblings, the description should mention save-prompting behavior or data-loss risk.

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 has 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage (trivially). The baseline score of 4 applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond what the empty schema indicates.

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 identifies the verb (Close) and resource (current Audacity project). It adequately distinguishes from siblings like project_open, project_save, and project_new by specifying 'current' and the close operation. However, it lacks specificity on whether this closes the window, clears memory, or ends the session.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use project_save first). It fails to mention prerequisites like saving unsaved changes or the consequences of closing with unsaved work.

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