octo_stop_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core action and target, which is helpful, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as whether the browser process is terminated, what happens if the profile is not running, or any authentication/ownership requirements. The force parameter's graceful-stop nuance appears only in the schema, not in the tool description.

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, focused sentence with the action and object front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content. This is an appropriate size for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation: what action to take, against which resource, and by which identifier. It could be more explicit about the relationship to browser_disconnect or behavior when the target is not running, but these are not critical for basic correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both uuid and force. The description adds only 'by UUID', which re-affirms the required parameter without adding new semantic detail. It does not compensate with additional context, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop'), identifies the exact resource ('running Octo Browser profile'), and specifies the identifier mechanism ('by UUID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle tools like octo_start_profile and browser_disconnect without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Stop a running Octo Browser profile' provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a profile is running and should be terminated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no competing stop tool exists among the siblings, so the usage context is sufficiently unambiguous.

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