browser_disable_shaders

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the script injection and three effects (WebGL block, rAF throttle, CSS freeze). It also gives timing advice (call before navigation). However, it does not disclose persistence across pages or side effects on other browser functions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first defines what the tool does, the second provides usage context and timing. No redundant words.

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 tool's simplicity (3 boolean params, no output schema), the description covers the essential: what, when, and how. Missing details like return value or error handling are minor. The 'call before navigation' advice is critical and included.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value by specifying the rAF throttle rate as '~1 FPS' and emphasizing the use case, which goes beyond the schema's standard descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool injects a script that blocks WebGL, throttles requestAnimationFrame, and freezes CSS animations/transitions. It specifies exact use cases like Three.js and WebGL dashboards, distinguishing it from siblings like browser_restore_shaders.

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 explicitly advises using the tool on heavy shader-rendered pages and calling before navigation for best results. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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