origin_bridge_shutdown

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two modes (release only vs close Origin) and the default behavior. However, it omits side effects (e.g., impact on running tasks, token invalidation) and does not explain the timeout parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., list parameters). No unnecessary text.

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?

Given 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete. It fails to document most parameters, does not mention the return value or side effects, and lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., is the bridge running?). The tool's complexity (many optional connection params) demands more completeness.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema), so the description must compensate. It only explains the close_origin parameter and implies release_origin via the default behavior. The other four parameters (host, port, token, timeout) are not described, leaving their semantics unclear. This is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 tool stops the Origin GUI bridge from serving requests, distinguishing between releasing the connection (default) and force-closing Origin. This is a specific verb+resource action, and among sibling bridge tools (e.g., origin_bridge_cancel_task), it uniquely addresses shutdown.

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 default behavior (release without close) and the optional close_origin parameter for force-close. It implies this is the tool to use for shutdown, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, given the sibling names, the usage context is clear.

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