browser_stop_human_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the critical behavioral rule: agent-initiated handovers end freely, while person-initiated ones require consent and can be refused. It stops short of saying what a refusal returns or how the agent should react to it.

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 with zero padding; the core action leads and the conditional consent nuance follows. Every clause carries information.

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 two-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the consent semantics well. It leaves the failure/refusal path undefined, which an agent calling this in a loop would want to know.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two optional parameters (tabId, windowId), and the schema already defines their defaults. The description adds nothing about tab or window targeting, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and object: reclaim a tab from human control and resume automation. This cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling browser_start_human_control, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It establishes the context in which the tool applies and splits it into two cases: a handover the agent initiated versus one the person started. It gives no explicit 'do not use when' or named alternative, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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