nx_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the current command completes before release, the journal ends, NX becomes interactive without restart, and the bridge can be restarted via Alt+F8. This is comprehensive for a control 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?

The description is two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and outcome, the second explains the sequencing and how to resume. No repetition or fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is complete. It explains what happens (command completes, journal ends, NX interactive), how to resume (launcher journal), and the lack of restart requirement. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers them trivially (100% coverage). The description explains the function's effect without needing parameter details. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds context about the release behavior, so a 4 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 clearly states the action ('Gracefully stop the bridge and release the NX GUI for manual editing') and identifies the resource (the bridge and NX GUI). It distinguishes from siblings by describing a control action rather than a modeling or query operation, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 explains the context for use: after the current command completes, the journal ends and NX becomes fully interactive. It also mentions how to start the bridge again later (run the launcher journal via Alt+F8). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare to alternatives, but the 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.