browser_playbook_diff_accept

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

Discloses the write/update nature (updates hashes, bumps version) but, with no annotations, could elaborate further on side effects (e.g., old references become obsolete), reversibility, or required permissions. Adequate but not rich.

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 efficient sentences: first states the action, second details the effects. No redundant words. Front-loaded with key verb 'bless'.

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?

Despite clear purpose and effects, the description lacks parameter explanations, preconditions, and return value. With 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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?

Description does not explain any of the three parameters (id, runId, steps). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent must guess the meaning and roles. No clarification on which parameters are required or optional.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: bless screenshots as new reference for a playbook, with specific verbs (bless, updates, bumps) and resources (visual_refs[], playbook_version). It is distinct from siblings like browser_playbook_propose_update and browser_playbook_match.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is used after a run to accept screenshots, but does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it (e.g., if only reviewing diff). No exclusions or alternative tools referenced.

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