browser_hide_highlight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key distinction—passing an identifier removes a specific overlay, whereas omitting all arguments clears every highlight—which is a potentially broad destructive action. It doesn't specify behavior with multiple identifiers or no matching highlight, but the main side effect is covered.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The sentence structure earns its place by covering both the base operation and the important all-clear default.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three optional params, the description is near-complete: it states the action, how to target, and the default all-clear behavior. Minor gaps like multiple-param precedence and return value keep it from a 5.

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?

All three parameters are already described in the schema, but the description adds the crucial relationship: they are alternative identifiers, and omission means a global clear. This adds real meaning beyond the individual field descriptions. It doesn't clarify whether multiple identifiers are combined or how conflicts resolve.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('highlight overlays'), and the second sentence distinguishes targeted removal from clearing all. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'browser_highlight' tool that adds overlays.

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 clearly states the two calling modes: pass one of label/selector/ref for a specific highlight, or omit all to clear every highlight. It does not explicitly name browser_highlight as an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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