extension_force_reconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses the behavioral sequence: connection teardown, backoff timer reset, reconnection attempt, and resumption of 'normal sync.full flow'. Critically, it prefixes the description with '[Disabled]', alerting the agent to the tool's current unavailability. It lacks mention of error handling or idempotency characteristics.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the '[Disabled]' warning is front-loaded, followed by the core action, mechanical details, flow resumption, use case guidance, and parameter instruction. No redundancy exists; the description efficiently packs behavioral details, usage conditions, and parameter guidance into a compact form.

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?

Given the single optional parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the reconnection process and side effects. However, without an output schema, it could improve by indicating what success looks like (e.g., whether it returns the new connection state or simply acknowledges the command). The '[Disabled]' flag is essential contextual metadata.

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?

While the input schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context by specifying when to use the connectionId parameter ('When multiple browser profiles are connected') and crucially referencing the sibling tool 'browser_list_tabs' to discover valid connectionId values, aiding the agent in correct parameter population.

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 explicitly states the tool forces the Chrome extension to disconnect its WebSocket and reconnect to the MCP server, using specific verbs ('tears down', 'resets', 'initiates'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'extension_reload' by emphasizing this recovers from stale connections 'without a full extension reload', establishing its specific niche.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('recover from stale connections') and implicitly contrasts it with full extension reloads. It also provides specific guidance on using the connectionId parameter when 'multiple browser profiles are connected'. It would achieve a 5 if it explicitly named 'extension_reload' as the alternative for full reload scenarios.

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