create_browser_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses billability ('stop the session when done to stop billing') and the returned connectUrl contract, which are real behavioral facts. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, lifetime limits, and what happens to state after the session ends, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. 'The smallest request is {}' is terse but earns its place by flagging that all 8 params are optional. Minor density is the only cost.

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?

For a complex 8-parameter session-creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical missing piece (the returned connectUrl and how to connect to it) plus the billing lifecycle. Remaining schema-documented behaviors (persist TTL, settings reuse, runtime timeouts) are adequately handled by the rich schema.

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 88%, so the schema already documents almost all parameters (proxy, browser/fingerprint, persist, runtime, storage, settings, startUrl). The description only adds that an empty request is valid ('smallest request is {}'), which is marginal beyond the schema's required:[] declaration, so the baseline 3 fits.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Start a Cloud Browser with a Floppydata proxy attached.' The billing/connection framing makes it clear this is a session-creation tool. It does not name any sibling (e.g., create_browser_live_view) to sharpen the distinction, so it stays at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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?

'Drive it with Puppeteer/Playwright using the returned connectUrl' and 'Stop the session when done to stop billing' imply the lifecycle (start → connect → stop), which is implied usage rather than explicit when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement of when this tool is preferable to alternatives or what conditions to avoid.

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