delete_browser_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility ('Permanently delete'), the exact scope of destruction (settings, cookies, storage), and the failure condition (active session). It omits auth/permission requirements and whether the failure is an error or a silent no-op.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope and the failure condition front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is destroyed, that it is permanent, and when it will fail. Only minor gaps remain (error/return behavior after failure), which are not required to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single settingsId parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and pattern constraints. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema already provides, 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 gives a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('saved Cloud Browser settings and browser state (cookies, storage)'), which is enough to tell it apart from delete_browser_session in practice. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling session-deletion tool, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It states a clear precondition for use: the call fails while a session using the settings is running, which is actionable guidance for an agent. It does not name alternatives (e.g., delete_browser_session) or say when to prefer this over them, so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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