browser_unblock_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool removes all URL routes added by two specific tools, which is transparent about scope and effect. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, permissions needed, or if the action is reversible.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and an output schema (though not described), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks context on default behavior (e.g., when session_id is null) and does not clarify if removal is across all sessions or just the current one.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not mention the only parameter 'session_id'. The parameter's purpose and impact are left entirely to the agent to infer, adding no value beyond the schema itself.

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 action ('Remove all URL routes') and specifies the tools that add them ('browser_block_urls or browser_mock_url'). This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like browser_block_urls and browser_mock_url.

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 implies usage when wanting to undo URL blocking or mocking, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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