disable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core actions (deactivate, disconnect) but omits important behavioral details such as whether the action is reversible, what happens to in-flight automation, or whether any state is preserved. For a state-changing tool, this is under-specified.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. However, it lacks contextual information about the relationship with 'enable' and 'status', and does not mention the effect on browser extension state or whether the action is reversible. It is the minimum viable description for a simple 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not need to explain parameter syntax or meanings since there are none. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Deactivate browser automation and disconnect from browser extension.' It uses specific verbs ('Deactivate', 'disconnect') and identifies the resources affected. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'enable' and 'status' by naming the deactivation/disconnection behavior, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'enable' and 'status', the description does not state that this is the counterpart to 'enable' or when disconnection is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions.

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