browse_profile_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful scope information beyond that — that saved logins are destroyed along with the profile. It does not state irreversibility, whether an in-use profile causes an error, or required permissions, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the destructive verb and the affected resource. Nothing padded or restated.

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?

Output schema and annotations carry the return-value and safety burden, and the description adds the scope of data loss, which is the key fact for a destructive tool. It could still note irreversibility or the in-use failure mode, but it is close to sufficient.

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 'name' parameter is fully documented, including the 'must not be in use' precondition and the naming pattern. The description only repeats 'named', adding nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a named browser profile') plus the collateral effect ('its saved logins'), so an agent can distinguish it from browse_profiles_list immediately. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus browse_profiles_list, no prerequisites such as confirming the profile is not currently in use, and no note about whether confirmation should be obtained first. The agent gets an action but no routing context.

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