browser_set_geolocation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'set geolocation' without explaining that this overrides the browser's geolocation for subsequent page interactions, whether it persists, or if any permissions are required. The description is purely nominal and fails to disclose any behavioral traits.

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 short, which could be considered concise, but it is under-specified. The single phrase '设置地理位置' doesn't earn its place because it merely repeats the tool name in another language. It lacks any structural breakdown or coverage of key aspects like parameters, side effects, or use cases, making it more an omission than a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is expected to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, but it provides none. There is no mention of how the geolocation is applied, what accuracy means, or how this interacts with the browser's state. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 shows three parameters (latitude, longitude, accuracy) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention any of these parameters, their meaning, or the expected format (e.g., decimal degrees). Since the schema is uninformative and the description does not compensate, the agent has no semantic guidance for filling the parameters correctly.

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 '设置地理位置' is a direct translation of the tool name ('set geolocation') and provides no additional information about the tool's purpose. It restates the name rather than elaborating on what setting geolocation entails or how it differs from the sibling tool browser_clear_geolocation. This is a tautology at the definition level.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, under what circumstances, or how it relates to alternatives such as browser_clear_geolocation or browser_emulate_media. There is no context about prerequisites or side effects, leaving the agent without any basis for selection among related tools.

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