browser_stop_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the task stops at the end of its current step and does not resume, that closing the tab/window is optional and scoped only to that task's resources, and that other windows are unaffected. It further explains why protocol-level cancellation is insufficient (advisory, may be ignored, cannot tidy the browser).

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 definition is four tightly packed sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary action and identifier, then layers optional behavior and disambiguation in a natural order.

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 three-parameter stop tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: action, identifier provenance, step-boundary behavior, optional cleanup semantics, scope of effect, and sibling differentiation. No material gap remains.

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%, so the schema already documents taskId, closeTab, and closeBrowserWindow. The description reinforces that taskId comes from browser_run_task and adds that only the relevant tab/window is closed, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('browser_run_task'), including the required identifier source. It explicitly distinguishes itself from browser_stop_loading and protocol-level cancellation, so an agent can select it confidently against siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context and names the precise alternative for a related but different operation: 'To stop a page loading rather than a task, use browser_stop_loading.' It also clarifies that this is not the same as protocol-level cancellation, setting clear boundaries.

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