stop_profile

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that cookies, sessions, and history persist, anything not submitted is lost, and calling it on a stopped profile is safely idempotent and reports already_stopped. This adds valuable non-obvious behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 focused sentences: the primary action, the persistence guarantee, and the idempotent edge case. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no nested objects and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the expected behavior, non-deletion guarantees, the stopped-profile case, and the return signal. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with the parameter 'profile' already clearly documented as requiring the exact name from list_profiles. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Close a running profile's Chrome window.' This clearly distinguishes stop_profile from sibling tools like start_profile, status, and trash_profile. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 provides clear usage context: it applies to a running profile and is harmless on a stopped profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use start_profile to reopen', but the intended use case is evident and edge-case behavior is addressed.

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