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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: journaling and upload acknowledgment happen first, 'accepted does not prove exited', and the closed client cannot restart itself through this link. That is valuable operational disclosure. The one flaw is the instruction to 'reuse command_id to read results', since the schema exposes retry_token, not command_id, which muddies the retry contract.

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 critical safety information is front-loaded and well ordered, which is good. But the tail contains generic routing boilerplate ('Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match', 'A local destination may be explicit or inherited...', 'The user does not need to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, a plugin, or this tool name') that does not help an agent decide or invoke this shutdown tool and dilutes the payload.

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 destructive, non-idempotent 10-parameter tool, the description covers the safety envelope well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The remaining gaps are the retry_token vs command_id mismatch and no guidance on when to pass device_id versus device_name or how workspace/ai_session_id scope the shutdown.

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?

Schema coverage is only 60% and allow_active_tasks has no schema description; the description supplies its semantics ('Running tasks require allow_active_tasks confirmation'), and reinforces user_confirmed, reason and recovery_plan as mandatory commitments. It does not explain device_id vs device_name selection or workspace/session scoping, and its retry guidance references a command_id that does not exist in the schema.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Close the explicitly authorized selected AiLinkAny client', and adds the precondition of journaling and result-upload acknowledgment. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling (e.g. connection_profile_close, process_stop, agent_stop) to distinguish itself from other termination tools.

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?

It states clear preconditions for invocation: explicit user shutdown confirmation, a reason, an independent local restart plan, and allow_active_tasks confirmation when tasks are running. It also warns 'never retry an uncertain shutdown', which is genuine when-not guidance. It stops short of naming which alternative tool to use when these preconditions fail.

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