blender_quit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: quitting with optional save. It explains that setting save=True saves before quitting, implying that save=False quits without saving. It does not elaborate on graceful behavior, but the description is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence that immediately states the action and the key parameter usage. Every word earns its place, and there is zero waste. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no required fields, no nested objects), the description covers the essential information: what it does and how to use the parameter. It does not mention return values, but since an output schema exists, that is acceptable. It is slightly lacking in mentioning prerequisites or consequences of unclean shutdown, but for a quit tool, the description is adequate.

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?

The input schema has a single boolean parameter 'save' with default false and no description (0% coverage). The description adds critical meaning: 'Set save=True to save before quitting.' This clearly explains the parameter's effect, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Quit Blender gracefully.' It uses a specific verb ('Quit') and resource ('Blender'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_launch, blender_save, and blender_new_file.

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 provides a usage guideline: 'Set save=True to save before quitting.' This tells the agent when to use the parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using system commands) or when not to use it. Since the tool is simple, the implicit usage context is clear enough.

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