confirm_exam_browser_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key non-obvious trait ('This does not save answers'), which tells the agent this is a read-only verification, but it says nothing about side effects on the run/tab, failure conditions, or what happens if the readback mismatches. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Three short lines: purpose first, then the rationale/precondition, then the explicit non-behavior. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the phrasing is telegraphic enough that some sentences need re-reading.

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 tool with five required, wholly undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing how run_id/plan_id/tab_id relate to the browser session. The output schema covers return values, but the calling contract is incomplete given the dense sibling set it must be distinguished from.

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 0% and all five parameters are required and undocumented. The description only obliquely hints at html_source ('must obtain HTML after navigation/reload or from the full preview') and says nothing about run_id, tab_id, plan_id, or exam_url, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (verify) and a specific object (the original question's saved answer) plus the evidence source (independent navigation DOM readback). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling verify_owned_exam_saved_answer, and the jargon ('controller', 'DOM readback') assumes domain fluency.

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?

'In-place selected state alone is insufficient: controller must obtain HTML after navigation/reload or from the full preview' gives a concrete precondition for calling it and rules out a tempting wrong usage. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating the pipeline order relative to save_owned_exam_answer / verify_owned_exam_saved_answer.

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