blender_stop

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 discloses the key trait an agent needs: a guard that blocks shutdown on dirty state, and that force=True is destructive ('kills it'). It stops short of stating what 'kills' entails (data loss extent, signals, return behavior), but it is far above the average unannotated mutation 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the failure condition and its override. Zero wasted words.

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 one-parameter lifecycle tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when it refuses, and the destructive override. Slightly more on what force actually does to unsaved work would make it airtight.

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 explain 'force' on its own, and it does: force=True bypasses the unsaved-changes refusal at the cost of killing the process. That is genuine semantic content beyond the bare boolean/default in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Quit Blender') with no ambiguity, and is trivially distinguishable from siblings like blender_save, blender_open, and blender_start. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 conveys the operative usage condition: the tool refuses when the file has unsaved changes, and force=True overrides that. This tells the agent when the call will fail and how to route around it, though it does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g., blender_save) for the unsaved-changes case.

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