browser_handle_dialog

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so this is a mutating, potentially destructive action — yet the description discloses nothing about side effects, what accepting vs dismissing does, or irreversibility. The description carries the full behavioral burden here and adds zero context.

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 words is not conciseness but under-specification. There is no wasted sentence, but there is also no substance — the text fails to earn its place as a tool description.

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 destructive browser action with no output schema and no annotations that explain behavior, the description is completely inadequate. It omits the dismiss/accept semantics, prompt-text requirement, and session targeting that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters (accept, sessionId, promptText) are documented in the schema itself. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Handle a dialog' restates the tool name and title rather than explaining the operation. It does not distinguish this from siblings in any meaningful way beyond the word 'dialog', and gives no hint of what 'handle' entails (accept vs dismiss vs supply prompt text).

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, no mention of when a dialog appears, and no alternatives or prerequisites. An agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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