Delete Browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Destroy' signals a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, which is useful, but nothing is said about whether associated files/artifacts are removed, whether active sessions are terminated, required permissions, or behavior when the ID is invalid.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, it should disclose irreversibility and side effects on the browser's files or sessions.

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 single browser_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pair ('stop and destroy') and a specific resource ('browser instance'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_browser or list_browsers, though the delete semantics are self-evidently distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite checks (e.g., confirm the browser exists), and no mention of what to do if the instance is still in use. The agent must infer all usage context.

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