browser_intercept_disable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it disables all interception and clears all rules, and notes the return to normal browsing. However, it does not explain potential side effects (e.g., impact on captured traffic history) or whether the action is reversible, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise: two sentences stating the action and when to call it, followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple disable operation with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. It explicitly states the scope ('for this browser session'), so the main context is present. Minor gap: it does not specify whether disabling all rules affects other sessions or if there are any prerequisites, but these are not critical for this tool.

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?

The schema for session_name has only a type and default, with 0% description coverage. The description's Args section adds the meaning 'Browser session to use' and notes the default, which is sufficient for this single, simple parameter. It could be more detailed (e.g., valid session names), but it compensates well for the schema's lack of description.

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 first sentence clearly states the action and scope: 'Disable ALL CDP Fetch interception and remove all rules for this browser session.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_interception_rule, which targets a single rule, by explicitly indicating that all rules are affected.

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 explicitly says 'Call this when you want to stop intercepting and return to normal browsing,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also clarifies that it clears both request and response intercept rules. However, it does not mention alternatives like remove_interception_rule for targeted removal, so it misses an explicit exclusion.

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