browser_route_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that blocking applies to all pages, but does not clarify that the rule persists until cleared (via browser_route_clear), whether it affects only future requests, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a tool that alters network behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a helpful example. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and scope but omits important operational details such as how to undo the blocking (implicitly via browser_route_clear), whether the rule persists across navigation, and what happens to in-flight requests. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is incomplete but not severely so.

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 schema already documents both parameters with full coverage (100%), including the default for urlPattern and the list of resource types. The description only restates the general concept of 'resource type and/or URL pattern' without adding new semantics or syntax details, so it meets the baseline but adds little beyond the schema.

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 ('Block requests'), the target (resource type and/or URL pattern), and provides a concrete example (images/fonts/media). It also notes the scope ('Applies to all pages in the context'), making it distinct from sibling routing tools like browser_route_clear and browser_route_mock.

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 gives a practical use case ('speed up loads and shrink fingerprint surface') and states the scope, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as browser_route_mock or browser_route_clear. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving some inference to the agent.

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