browser_teach_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that by default the call blocks waiting for the human to press 'Terminar' or 'Cancelar', that it persists a recipe, and that it returns steps plus parameters. It omits what happens on cancel (empty/partial recipe?) and what occurs when the timeout fires, which are the remaining 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the default blocking behavior and outcome. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter stop tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the default blocking mode, and the return payload (steps and parameters). Edge-case outcomes (cancel, timeout expiry, no active session) are left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; the description's added value is stating the default for `wait` ('por defecto espera...'), a default the schema does not declare. It says nothing extra about `timeout` semantics beyond the schema's millisecond hint.

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 (termina la grabación de browser_teach_start) and names the paired sibling tool, plus what it produces (guarda la receta y devuelve pasos y parámetros). It does not distinguish itself from browser_record_stop, another stop-recording sibling, so a small ambiguity remains.

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?

Usage is implied by the pairing with browser_teach_start (call this to close that session). There is no explicit statement of when not to use it versus browser_record_stop, nor prerequisites such as requiring an active teach session.

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