quit_app

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether unsaved changes block or prompt termination, whether the quit is graceful, or what happens to the session state on failure.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler — appropriately sized and front-loaded. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, which is not penalized here.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, annotations cover the risk flag and the schema fully documents discard_changes. Still missing is the crucial operational detail of what happens when unsaved changes exist and discard_changes is omitted, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would face.

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 discard_changes parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description is not required to explain it. Baseline 3 applies since the description contributes no additional meaning about the parameter.

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 names a specific verb (closes) and the exact resource (Bosca Ceoil Blue), so an agent can tell this is an app-termination tool. It is not differentiated from siblings, but none of the listed siblings (launch_app, stop, pause) could be confused with quitting the application entirely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus stop/pause or save_song first, and no mention of prerequisites such as saving pending work. The agent must infer that this terminates the whole app rather than playback.

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