Shut down a browser

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds significant beyond-schema context: this frees the browser name, releases memory, discards profile and runtime flags for future relaunches, resets the default browser rather than retiring it, and never closes user-attached browsers. That fully discloses the destructive and side-effect behavior.

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 and well-structured: main purpose first, followed by the key differentiator, then special cases. Every sentence carries necessary information, and no filler or repetition exists.

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 destructive tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what is destroyed, persistence behavior, special handling of 'default', and the constraint on user-attached browsers. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and avoid misuse.

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 single parameter 'browser' is fully documented in the schema with its name and default value (100% schema coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful behavioral context about the 'default' browser and attached browsers, though it does not add new parameter-format or value guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific action—'Quit one browser's Chrome and free its name'—which clearly identifies the resource and the operation. It also explicitly differentiates itself from close_browser, so an agent can distinguish the two without needing to inspect other schemas.

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 the exact trigger: 'Use it when an agent is finished with its browser.' It then compares with close_browser and explains when that alternative is appropriate, and it warns that attached browsers and the 'default' browser are handled differently. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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