browser_type_otp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the distribution of digits across boxes using a React-tracked setter, returns a snapshot, and clarifies that submission is separate. This is transparent about the tool's effect on the page.

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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses backticks for clarity and provides necessary detail without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of handling multi-box OTP widgets, the description covers the key aspects: behavior, return value, and follow-up action. It does not explain what 'ref' refers to (selector type) or error handling, but it is sufficient for an experienced user.

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 explains 'ref' (the field) and 'code' (the OTP) but does not mention the optional 'session_id' parameter. With 0% schema documentation coverage, the description partially compensates for the required parameters but leaves the optional one undocumented.

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: entering an OTP/verification code, specifically handling multi-box widgets where each digit goes into a separate input. It distinguishes from siblings like 'browser_type' by specifying the multi-box behavior and return value.

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?

Description explains when to use (for OTP fields, especially multi-box) and mentions that after entering the code, one still needs to submit (Enter/Verify button). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools like 'browser_type' for single-input fields.

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