configure

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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, open-world mutation; the description adds the key operational facts: the browser restarts, profile='name' preserves cookies/logins while '' discards them, and reset_fingerprint clears overrides. It does not say whether restart interrupts in-flight sessions or what the response contains, but the side-effect disclosure is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and restart semantics, then a dense semicolon-separated parameter map that is efficient for 20 fields. Dense but no filler sentences.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the restart/persistence behavior is covered. However, for a 20-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, leaving locale/timezone/geoip and the proxy vs proxies pair unexplained is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 burden and does explain roughly two-thirds of the 20 parameters (profile, proxy, headless, capture_console, human_preset/human_config, fingerprint_seed, platform/gpu_vendor/hardware_concurrency/screen_*, brand, reset_fingerprint). It never explains locale, timezone, geoip, humanize, restart, or the distinction between 'proxy' and 'proxies' — a potentially costly ambiguity left unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change browser settings at runtime') and immediately clarifies the default read behavior of no arguments. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like new_identity, rotate_proxy, or fingerprint_info, even though fingerprint_seed overlaps conceptually with those.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: no args = show current, headless=False for captchas, proxy='' clears the proxy. Missing is any routing guidance versus new_identity or rotate_proxy, which an agent would plausibly confuse with profile/fingerprint/proxy changes here.

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