Set network state

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description confirms the mutation by stating it changes network state, which is consistent. It adds the specific behavior (toggling offline/online) but does not mention side effects such as whether it affects the current page or session. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Go offline or back online'), and the use case follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one enum parameter, no output schema, and annotations that already cover the safety profile, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it does, when to use it, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'state', with an enum of ['online', 'offline'] and a clear description. The tool description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Go offline or back online') and resource (network state), and adds a clear use case ('testing error paths'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguishes from all sibling browser tools, which are navigation, interaction, and storage operations.

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 provides a clear context for when to use it ('testing error paths'), which guides an agent on appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives; given there are no network-state siblings, this is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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