bridge_shutdown

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the primary effects: in-flight jobs are cancelled and state is flushed before exit. It omits whether the shutdown is irreversible, what happens to results of cancelled jobs, whether the process can be restarted, and whether any permissions are required — significant gaps for a destructive/terminal operation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, purpose front-loaded ahead of the usage note. Efficient, though the second sentence could have carried the grace-period detail at no cost to length.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema shutdown tool, the description covers what it does and one usage context, but leaves the single parameter and the irreversibility/permission story unexplained. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict the consequences of graceMs or of a mid-flight job.

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?

There is one parameter, graceMs, with 0% schema description coverage and no mention anywhere in the description. Since the schema provides nothing, the description needed to explain what the grace period governs (drain time before hard kill?) and its default; it does neither.

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 and effect: 'Cancel all in-flight jobs, flush state and exit' — an agent knows exactly what the call does to the bridge. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling cursor_cancel, which also plausibly cancels jobs, so the boundary between 'cancel one job' and 'shut down everything' is only implied.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition: use before restarting the bridge to avoid orphaned Cursor processes. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. cursor_cancel for partial cleanup) and gives no 'do not use during X' exclusions, so an agent must infer the safety envelope itself.

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