update-browser

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. 'Update the browser' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or side effects. For a complex 13-parameter mutation tool, this complete lack of behavioral context is severely inadequate.

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 consists of just three words - 'Update the browser' - making it extremely concise. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While the content is inadequate, the form is maximally efficient with every word serving the core message (however limited that message may be).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters including nested objects), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what 'updating a browser' means in this context, what the operation affects, what permissions are needed, or what the expected outcome is. The description provides essentially no useful context for the agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, and constraints. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Update the browser' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'update-browser'. It provides no specific information about what aspects of a browser are updated, what resources are involved, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'create-browser' or 'update-group'. This minimal description fails to communicate the tool's actual function.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a browser ID), when this tool is appropriate versus creating a new browser, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update-group'. The agent receives zero contextual usage information from the description.

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