omni_world_quit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the main effect (returning to the main menu) and the prerequisite relationship to omni_world_create. However, it does not clarify side effects, whether the operation is safe/idempotent when no world is active, or what happens to the current world state.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the crucial scheduling constraint is added in the second sentence. Every word contributes useful information.

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 zero-parameter lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the effect and when it is required. The only notable omission is confirming behavior when no world is running, which would make it fully robust for an agent's decision-making.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies: parameter semantics are trivially complete and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 the action ('quit' / back to the main menu) and the resource context (the running world), and it distinguishes the tool from the sibling omni_world_create by noting it is required before creation. This is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how it differs from related lifecycle 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: it should be called before omni_world_create when a world is already running. It names the relevant sibling and gives the condition for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as behavior when no world is running.

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