ap_quit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the destructive consequence ('Unsaved work is LOST'), provides mitigation ('save first'), and explains the unusual exit behavior (app exits before committing a reply, so 'no reply' is normal). This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences with zero waste: the action is front-loaded, the critical warning follows immediately, and the reply-behavior caveat closes it. Every sentence earns its place and the structure orders information by importance (action → danger → expected response).

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: the destructive precondition, the required parameter value, and the expected reply behavior. Nothing is missing for correct invocation of this simple, one-parameter 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 100% and the schema already documents confirm as 'Must be true. Guards against an accidental shutdown.' The description reinforces 'Requires confirm=true' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Quit ArmorPaint,' which unambiguously states the tool's sole purpose. It is clearly differentiated from all 57 siblings, which cover painting, exporting, filesystem, and project operations — none of which involve terminating the application.

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 gives clear operational context: save work first, and confirm=true is mandatory. While it doesn't name an alternative tool explicitly, no sibling provides a quitting alternative, and 'save first' implicitly points to the save-family tools. This is clear guidance with no exclusions needed.

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