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. It does not say whether closing is reversible, what happens to unsaved changes if save is false, whether the project is unloaded from memory, or what happens on failure — all critical for a destructive-feeling 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 short sentence with zero filler and the key scope word ('active') front-loaded. Brevity is appropriate, though it tips into under-specification rather than tightness.

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 project-level mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites (is a project open?), side effects on open sequences, and post-close state. An agent could call it correctly only by guessing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the default (true) for 'save'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline applies when the schema does the work.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Close the active project'), and the 'active' qualifier scopes the target. It implicitly distinguishes from close_sequence and open_project, though it never names them.

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 on when to close the project versus saving it first, versus save_project or close_sequence, nor on what a caller should do if a sequence is still open. The agent must infer all invocation conditions.

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