apps_exit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by scoping what survives ("Preserves the shell, access, App files and saved data") and by warning that the operation is not safely replayable, which sharpens the meaning of the destructive/non-idempotent hints.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the action and scope, then append preserved state and post-interruption guidance. No filler, though the parenthetical scope phrasing is slightly dense.

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 mutation tool with strong annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral edges: what survives the exit and what to do after an interruption. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters, which the description should have addressed.

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% for two parameters (instanceId, operationId), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies "the specified current device App" maps to instanceId but says nothing about operationId, its purpose, or how it relates to apps_operation_status.

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 (Exit) and resource (device App) plus a scope qualifier (within the invitation's Launch/Exit scope), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apps_launch and apps_open. It doesn't name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

"Read apps_state after interruption; never replay blindly" gives real operational guidance about the post-condition and a caution against blind retry, which is useful. However, it never states when to choose this tool over apps_control, apps_launch, or other lifecycle siblings, so the core when-to-use routing is left to inference.

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