banner_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mutation nature via 'Push state updates' but does not disclose permissions, side effects on the tab, prerequisites (e.g., existing banner), or what the function returns. The agent is left uninformed about the operational consequences of calling it.

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, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the action and scope before a clarifying parenthetical. There is zero filler, and every word earns its place. This is an exemplar of 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?

For a simple setter tool, the description plus fully documented schema is mostly sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, operational details such as whether the banner must exist, how partial updates behave, or failure modes are unstated. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 the schema already defines all four parameters. The description adds a small semantic grouping by referring to 'recording indicator, counts', which maps to recording, consoleCount, and networkCount, but it does not clarify targetId or add constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Push state updates') and resource ('Argus banner on a tab'), and clarifies the kind of state with examples ('recording indicator, counts'). This distinguishes it from the only other banner-related sibling, banner_get_screenshots, which retrieves screenshots rather than modifying state. It is clear but relies on domain knowledge of 'Argus banner'.

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 (if you need to update the banner state, call this tool) but provides no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in other scenarios. This is adequate but leaves the decision largely to the agent's inference.

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