Remove saved browser state

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds a key behavioral nuance: it clarifies that removing state does not close or alter live sessions, which is valuable beyond the annotation. However, it does not detail what happens to the state data or if any confirmation is needed, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Delete persisted browser state') and includes a crucial clarification. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity is low (single parameter, clear destructive intent), the description provides the essential context: what it deletes and that it does not affect live sessions. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed. However, the lack of parameter semantics (as noted) leaves a gap for an agent to correctly construct the stateId, and the description could have mentioned the need to list states or save state to get valid stateIds.

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 has only one parameter (stateId) with basic type and length constraints, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'safe logical stateId' but does not explain what 'safe' means or how to obtain a valid stateId, nor does it clarify if it is a UUID or an opaque identifier. With no parameter documentation in the schema, the description fails to provide sufficient semantics beyond listing the parameter name.

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 (delete persisted browser state) and the resource (by stateId), and distinguishes it from related state operations like browser_state_save and browser_state_list. However, it could have been more explicit about when to remove state versus other lifecycle operations, but the core purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 some usage context by stating the condition for deletion ('when it should no longer be restorable'), which implies it is for cleanup of obsolete states. It also clarifies that it does not affect live sessions, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for managing sessions or when NOT to use this tool, leaving the usage guidance somewhat implicit rather than fully explicit.

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