browser_type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of permission requirements for element interaction, session behavior, or what happens on submit.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the core action front-loaded. Nothing to trim, though it is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the fully-documented schema carries most of the load. Still, a browser-interaction tool with this many overlapping siblings would benefit from at least one line on when it applies versus fill_form or press_key.

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%, so all six parameters including the subtle 'slowly', 'submit', and 'element' options are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (type) and resource (text into editable element), which is clear on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from close siblings like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key, both of which overlap with typing behavior.

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 choose browser_type over browser_fill_form, browser_press_key, or browser_select_option. The agent is left to infer selection criteria entirely from the name.

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