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

Annotations already declare destructiveness, idempotency and open-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: sessions close within ~15 s and unused links stop working. That timing and post-condition disclosure is meaningful beyond the structured hints, though permissions/auth needs are not addressed.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose first, qualifying behavior second, with the endpoint as a trailing anchor. Every clause carries information with no padding.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the action, its effect, and its timing well. It omits any mention of who can invoke it or what the caller gets back, but with no output schema that gap is minor.

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 100%, so both chatId and taskId are already documented, and the endpoint path in the description only restates where they slot in. The description adds no format or constraint meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('End every live view of the agent's browser'), clearly stating what the tool does and distinguishing it from the inverse muse_open_browser_viewer. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 only implied by 'End every live view' — there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-use, or pointer to alternatives such as muse_release_browser or muse_stop_browser. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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