browser_disconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the most important side effect—the browser remains running—which prevents agents from assuming disconnect shuts down Chrome; more minor behaviors such as idempotency or already-disconnected state are not disclosed, but for a zero-parameter action this is a valuable and non-obvious 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key behavioral caveat is placed in parentheses immediately after the action, making it maximally scannable.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the action and its primary consequence completely. It could be fuller by stating what happens if no browser is connected, but that omission is minor for a simple disconnect primitive.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already completely describes the empty input.

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 names a specific action, 'Disconnect from Chrome', and explicitly adds the behavioral nuance 'leaves browser running', which distinguishes it from closing or terminating via tab_close or browser_launch. This clear verb+resource formulation lets an agent identify the tool's purpose immediately.

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 parenthetical implies the tool is appropriate when a disconnect is wanted without killing the browser, but it does not state when to prefer it over connect/launch/close siblings or mention any prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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