browser_inject_passkey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inject' and 'keep it alive' imply a persistent action, but there is no explanation of side effects, cleanup, required browser state, or whether the injection is reversible. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It delivers the essential action and context in a minimal, scannable format.

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 too sparse for a tool with no annotations and an output schema that is not shown. It omits prerequisites (e.g., open browser, existing Bitwarden item), the meaning of 'isolated slot', how 'keep it alive' is managed, and any disambiguation from related injection tools. The output schema may cover return values, but the behavior and usage context remain incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of the two required parameters, 'slot' and 'bw_item_id'. The phrase 'isolated slot' hints at 'slot', but there is no explicit mapping or additional detail that would help an agent construct correct arguments.

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 clearly states the action ('Inject'), the target resource ('a Bitwarden passkey'), and the specific context ('into an isolated slot'), with an added behavioral clause ('and keep it alive'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_inject_signer (signer vs. passkey) and browser_webauthn_bypass (bypass vs. injection).

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Users are left to infer usage from the tool name and the general context, which is insufficient given the overlapping sibling tools.

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