Seed Domain Session

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains why storage_state is preferred (preserves cookies + localStorage for fingerprint-coherent replay) and that the session is org-scoped. It does not mention overwrite behavior or TTL, but this is not a contradiction and the additional context is meaningful.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by concise preference/fallback guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core usage scenario well: what to provide (storage_state or cookie_header+user_agent) and why. It misses a few operational details like TTL handling and what the tool returns, but for a credential-seeding tool, the essential context is present.

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 50%, and the description compensates by explicitly explaining the relationship between storage_state, cookie_header, and user_agent ('Prefer... Fallback...'). It adds semantics not in the schema for those parameters. However, it does not explain ttl_hours or the cookies object, which remain undocumented in both schema and description, preventing a 5.

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 ('Store') and clearly states the resource ('browser session credentials') and scope ('for a domain (org-scoped)'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining its role in enabling later scrapes with a unified browser session, differentiating it from tools like metalift_scrape or metalift_warm_session.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating a preference ('Prefer full Playwright storage_state JSON') and a fallback ('Fallback: cookie_header + user_agent from DevTools'). It implies when to use it (before scrapes that need authenticated sessions) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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