Stop a profile

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: cookies and history are preserved, and profiles started by this token stop silently while others require user confirmation. This is meaningful side-effect and auth/consent context that annotations alone (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) do not convey. It stops short of explaining behavior when the profile is not running or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the preserved-state caveat and consent rule. No filler.

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 stop tool with no output schema, the description covers the key state effects and consent behavior. Remaining gaps, such as the response or error behavior for an already-stopped profile, are minor.

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?

Only one parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no meaning beyond type integer. The description implies the id names a profile but adds no format, range, or lookup detail, leaving the baseline of 3 for a single-param tool.

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 ('Closes') and resource ('a running profile's browser') with concrete scope. It does not name stop_all_profiles or stop_run as alternatives, so the agent must infer the single-profile scope from the phrasing.

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 implies when it applies (a running profile) and gives a notable condition for confirmation. It never states when to use stop_all_profiles or stop_run instead, so routing among the stop-family siblings is left to inference.

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