browser_grant_permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains that the tool pre-grants permissions and dismisses prompts automatically, and mentions scope via origin. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or the behavior of the session_id parameter, which is left unmentioned.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, uses bullet points for parameter explanations, and provides actionable guidance in a separate sentence. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the main use cases and behavior. However, it lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., an active session) and does not mention error conditions or edge cases, making it slightly 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must add meaning for all parameters. It explains 'permissions' with examples and 'origin' with scope, but completely omits 'session_id'. This gap is significant, leaving the agent partially uninformed.

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 tool's purpose: 'Pre-grant browser permissions so the native prompt never blocks the flow.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like browser_set_geolocation by focusing on permission grants rather than setting values.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this before navigating to a page that requests permissions, or immediately when a permission prompt appears.' However, it does not discuss when not to use the tool or how it compares to alternatives like browser_handle_dialog, which might handle permission prompts differently.

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