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

Clearly describes the creation side effect, the returned URL, the handshake deadline, and notes that the response carries no token or secret. It aligns with the readOnly=false annotation; slightly less detail is given about what happens after the handshake completes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and result, and every sentence adds meaningful usage or behavioral detail. No redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter schema and available annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to authenticate, what the response contains, and the expiry constraint. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema and reinforced in the description. The agentId authentication nuance and ttl enum/rejection behavior are explicit, making the semantics unambiguous.

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 ('Create') and the exact resource (short-lived, single-use connect URL) for linking a browser extension or Puppeteer worker to an Anima agent. The returned `connectUrl` purpose and handshake context clearly distinguish it from other tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: agentId MUST be passed with a master key and OMITTED with an agent key, ttl is optional, and values above the org maximum are rejected. This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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