Quit an app

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and open-world behavior, but the description adds the graceful nature and the fact that unsaved changes may prompt inside the app. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention whether the call returns a result or can fail silently.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the primary action and then adds relevant caveats and parameter instruction. No fluff, but the third sentence is slightly redundant with the schema.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the potential side effect, and the required input. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could note whether the action is asynchronous or whether it confirms success.

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 parameter name 'name' is described as 'Application name to quit.' The description adds 'Give the app's name,' which is redundant with the schema. With high schema coverage, 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 states a clear verb (ask/quit), a specific resource (application), and a mode (graceful). This distinguishes it from siblings like kill_process (forceful) and open/activate_app, and it names the action without ambiguity.

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 implies graceful quitting and mentions potential unsaved-change prompts, but it does not explicitly contrast with kill_process or state when to choose this over a force-quit alternative. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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