Shutdown Raccoon

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, local operation. The description adds that the shutdown is 'graceful' (as opposed to forced), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it omits what happens to in-flight work, whether the request can be declined, and whether confirmation is required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably too terse for a destructive multi-parameter tool, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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 destructive, unannotated-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should explain target selection and shutdown consequences. It provides neither, so an agent cannot confidently call it with or without the device parameters.

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?

Two parameters (deviceId, deviceName) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions them at all. Worse, its 'current Raccoon server' framing conflicts with the existence of device-targeting parameters, leaving the agent unable to infer how to select a target.

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 resource ('request shutdown of the current Raccoon server') with an added qualifier ('gracefully'). It is distinguishable from force-style siblings like force_terminate and kill_process, though it never names them explicitly. The phrase 'current Raccoon server' is somewhat at odds with the deviceId/deviceName parameters, which imply targeting arbitrary devices.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The word 'gracefully' hints at a contrast with force_terminate/kill_process, but the description never states when to prefer this over a forced kill or what prerequisites exist.

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