browser_upload

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action (click, send file) and the resulting fresh snapshot, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool waits for the upload to complete, what happens if the control is missing, or potential page navigation—gaps that matter for reliable automation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, parameter mapping, and output in sequence. There is no filler or repetition; every phrase 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?

The description is adequate for a two-parameter browser action with a shared snapshot return concept. It mentions the return ('fresh snapshot') and ties the file path to start_application, which covers the main workflow dependencies. It omits minor details like wait behavior or failure modes, but these are less critical given the narrow scope.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly interprets both parameters: 'n' is the upload control number, and 'file_path' is the local CV path from start_application. This gives the agent precise meaning far beyond the raw schema property names.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Click upload control #n and send a local file' and identifies the resource (upload control) and the context (CV path from start_application). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click, browser_set, or browser_type, which target other interaction types.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: after start_application, when an upload control is present and a file must be sent. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specific mention of 'CV path from start_application' gives concrete workflow context, which is strong enough for an agent to route selection.

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