configure_course_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the process-owned browser is reused across accounts, that a mode change closes the old browser FIRST, and that no second concurrent instance is ever opened. It omits what happens if the call is made mid-login or whether the batch must be restarted.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the most important constraint (one mode, chosen before login) followed by mode definitions and side effects. The telegraphic fragments ('headless: no window.') are efficient, though the line breaks make it slightly less scannable than a single structured sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described; what remains — scope (whole batch), timing (before login), and lifecycle side effects — is covered. Missing only the failure mode when the precondition is violated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, defining both enum members (headless = no window; minimized = visible-capable independent Edge starting minimized). Only the default/omitted behavior is left to the schema.

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 makes clear this sets the browser display mode for the whole account batch, and enumerates the two modes with brief definitions. It doesn't differentiate itself from nearby window tools such as minimize_owned_window or use_window_viewport, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Explicit timing constraint: 'Choose ONE mode for the entire account batch BEFORE login' — that is real usage guidance about when to call it. It does not name alternatives or say what happens if invoked after login, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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