Plecs Crash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds that the target is the *running* process, implying loss of in-memory state, but it never says what is lost (unsaved models, active simulations) or what happens if confirm is omitted — whether it errors or is a no-op.

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, effect first and the required argument second, with no filler. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists and there is only one parameter, so little needs explaining; the destructive nature and the confirm gate are both covered. The only gap is the failure behavior when confirm is absent, which is minor for such a narrow tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does state the critical semantic: confirm must be true. That tells the agent the default of false will not trigger the crash. It stops short of saying what response follows a missing confirm, but the load-bearing detail is present.

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 ('Crash the running PLECS process') and labels it a 'debug helper', which distinguishes it from graceful-shutdown siblings like plecs_close. It never names that alternative explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 parenthetical 'debug helper' hints at the debug context in which this is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to plecs_close for normal shutdown. An agent must infer the boundary itself.

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