browser_file_upload

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not explain side effects (e.g., opening a dialog, replacing files) or any authorization requirements.

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, succinct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be marginally more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

The description is too sparse to be complete for a mutation tool with no output schema. It does not mention return values, what happens after upload, or the file chooser interaction. The schema covers parameter details, but the overall tool behavior remains under-specified.

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 100% and thoroughly explains the 'paths' parameter, including the conditional behavior of omitting it. The description itself adds no extra semantic information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uploads one or multiple files, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like browser_drop, but the action of uploading is distinct enough in the context of browser file operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_drop. It neither mentions the file picker context nor advises on prerequisites or scenarios where upload is appropriate.

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