close_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention whether unsaved changes are lost, whether confirmation is required, or what happens to the project state after closing. Given the destructive nature, more context would be valuable, but the description stays at a surface level.

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, well-formed sentence that delivers the core message without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple action, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is minimal and omits important context for a destructive operation. It does not indicate whether closing implies saving or discarding changes, nor does it describe any potential side effects or errors. The output schema exists but the description adds nothing about return values or preconditions, leaving the agent with limited understanding of the tool's full impact.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The empty schema is fully covered, and there is no need for the description to explain parameters because none exist. The description correctly focuses on the action rather than parameter details.

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 active PLAXIS project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_project, new_project, save_project, and recover_project. The use of 'active' also narrows the scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 implies usage: it should be used when the user wants to close the currently active project. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., save before closing, or recover a mistakenly closed project). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison with related tools.

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