done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly discharges it: it discloses that actions are silently recorded but not persisted until done is called, that success:true gates the auto-save, and that a recipe is created from `text`. It does not describe the response or what is returned on failure, leaving a modest gap.

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 bracketed browser-scope preamble is front-loaded and the core instruction ('Always call this once you're finished…') follows immediately. The closing sentence about silent recording is dense but earns its place by explaining the persistence model; overall slightly long but without 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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior — completion signaling, auto-save trigger, recipe derivation from `text`. The main omission is any statement of what a caller receives back, but with no output schema the agent mainly needs invocation guidance, which is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains that `text` becomes the recipe's replay instruction and that `success` gating determines whether the sequence is persisted. This meaningfully clarifies both parameters, though it does not state the expected format or length of `text`.

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 — completing the browser task and signaling the end of it — and the bracketed preamble scopes it to the real-browser workflow. An agent can distinguish it from action siblings like click_element or go_to_url, though it never explicitly names which sibling would be used instead for other purposes.

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?

Explicitly says to always call it once finished with a browser task, succeeded or not, and explains that it is the only trigger for auto-saving a recipe. It also ties itself to find_recipe as the replay alternative, giving the agent a clear when-to-use and what-competing-tool-to-use story.

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