toolbag_quit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: there is no confirmation prompt and the process closes immediately after responding. It does not say what happens to in-flight work or subsequent tool calls, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the risk. The trailing phrase is slightly awkwardly worded ("the plugin answers and Toolbag closes right after") but carries real meaning about the abrupt close.

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 no-parameter, destructive termination tool with an output schema already covering the response, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: the data-loss risk and the absence of a confirmation prompt. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly says nothing about inputs.

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 Toolbag") that no sibling shares, so an agent can distinguish it from shutdown-adjacent tools like scene_save or execute_python at a glance. The second clause clarifies the terminating effect rather than restating the name.

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 warning that unsaved changes are lost implies the prerequisite of saving beforehand, but it never states when to use this tool versus persisting work first, nor names any alternative. Usage is inferable from the name rather than explicitly guided.

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