quit_app

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the app "may still ask to save unsaved work," warning the agent that the call may be blocked by a dialog. It stops short of describing non-existent apps or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences plus a minimal Args block; the core action and its caveat are front-loaded with no filler. The "Args:" formatting is slightly formulaic but adds no bloat.

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 single-parameter action tool with annotations covering the destructive profile and no output schema, the description supplies the parameter meaning, the prerequisite lookup tool, and the save-dialog caveat. Enough for correct invocation; only edge-case failure behavior is omitted.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It names the argument, explains it is the app's name, gives a concrete example ("Spotify"), and points to list_apps for exact-name resolution. That compensates well for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Quit a running app") that an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like open_app and list_apps without opening any schema. No ambiguity about what action is performed.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance: "Use list_apps first if unsure of the exact name." This is a clear when-to-use directive, though it does not discuss when not to use the tool or compare against alternatives such as run_shell.

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