start_course_browser

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral weight: single shared browser per process, memory-only HTTP cookies, no daily profile copy, no port discovery. It omits failure modes, idempotency (what happens on a second call), process lifetime, and whether the call blocks until the browser is ready.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, then tight supporting sentences; nothing is redundant. 'No daily profile copy and no port discovery' is somewhat jargon-y but earns its place by ruling out design assumptions.

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 need not be described. However, for a state-creating browser launch with zero annotations and four undocumented parameters, the description should say more about preconditions and re-invocation behavior to be safely callable.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only explains account_id (empty = unauthenticated login page). channel, headless, and browser_mode (including its auto/headless/minimized enum) get no meaning at all.

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 and resource: launch ONE browser inside this MCP process and seed it with the login session. The 'ONE' emphasis and 'in this MCP process' scope make it distinguishable from attach_course_browser/observe_course_browser, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It implies the launching context via 'Empty account_id opens the official login page without credentials' and 'A later account bind reuses the same browser,' which hints at the credential-less bootstrap flow. But it never states when to prefer this over attach_course_browser/open_account_browser, nor what to do if a browser is already running.

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