octobrowser_stop_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action 'Stop a running profile' without detailing side effects, reversibility, error behavior (e.g., what if the profile is already stopped), or return values. The phrase 'on local machine' adds a minor constraint but does not disclose the consequences of the stop operation.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Stop a running profile on local machine.' It contains no filler and directly communicates the action, resource, and scope. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, but the description leaves out critical operational details: what happens if the profile is not running, whether the operation is idempotent, what the return value looks like, and any effect on session data. The agent lacks information to predict the tool's behavior in edge cases and cannot infer the response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotations or output schema.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with the description 'Profile UUID' for the only parameter, making the schema self-sufficient. The description adds the qualifier 'running profile', implying the UUID must refer to an active profile, which is a slight enhancement. However, since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description doesn't add significant extra meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Stop' with the resource 'a running profile' and adds 'on local machine' as scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_profiles' (which removes profiles) and 'start_profile' (the opposite action). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that leaves no 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 profile' implies when to use it (when you need to stop an active profile), but it does not explicitly state alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that you should verify the profile is running via 'get_active_profiles' or that you should use 'start_profile' to restart it. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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