browser_record_stop

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions returning a 'review-required workflow draft' but omits side effects (e.g., whether the recording session ends permanently) or error conditions (e.g., no active recording). The behavioral impact is inadequately communicated.

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 that efficiently conveys the action and result with no extraneous words. Every part is essential.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the main action and return value but lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., must have an active recording) and implications of 'review-required'. More details would improve completeness.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly handles the absence of inputs.

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 clearly states the action ('Stop recording') and the result ('return a review-required workflow draft'). It uses specific verbs and a distinct resource, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like browser_record_start and browser_record_status.

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use or not use this tool. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'use after starting a recording') or exclusions (e.g., 'not for checking status'). The sibling context alone is insufficient for clear usage direction.

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