ac_quit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shutdown sequence and the fallback to taskkill only if the bridge hangs, but it does not state whether quitting is destructive, what happens to unsaved state, or what permissions are 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?

The definition is a single compact sentence with the main action front-loaded and the fallback condition in parentheses. Every part contributes useful information with no filler.

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 quit/shutdown tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description covers the core sequence but leaves gaps around parameter effect, failure behavior, and destructive side effects. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the specific config files restored (race.ini/video.ini), which gives meaning to restore_configs, but it never explains the boolean toggle or what happens when restore_configs is false.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Quit AC' plus backup restoration. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool ac_restore_configs, which likely handles restoration separately.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Quit AC' and the mention of restoring backups, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus ac_restore_configs or ac_launch. No conditions or exclusions are stated.

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