No, the definition of 'stealth bot' is a disaster. The proposed text criminalizes altering your user-agent string. It arguably criminalizes all existing user-agent strings, since their whole purpose is to lie about which browser you are.
Taking the first thing I could find, geekflare.com informs me that the current user-agent string for Google Chrome running on Windows 11 is
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/155.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
What's doing the work in the proposed text is the prohibition on using software "in a manner that is reasonably likely to damage, impair, or burden the technical or commercial operation of" a service.> Someone who is using a residential proxy network, headless browsing, and/or TLS fingerprint manipulation to evade rate limits and other controls to issue large volumes of automated requests under a deceptive UserAgent string isn't difficult to describe and differentiate versus a normal user using a UA.
Note that someone who's scripting a headless browser doesn't need to use a deceptive user-agent string. They can use the user-agent string for their browser, which isn't deceptive except to the degree that all user-agent strings are 90+% lies.
The proposed text makes it illegal to (not criminalises) running a stealth bot that causes harm that was predictable. This seems reasonable to me. It's legal if either the bot identifies itself, it's harmless, or it should have been harmless (you can't put up a web server that crashes on every 404 and then blame me for crashing it).