browser_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that op=call sends API requests without exposing the agent to tokens, that op=sign_in types saved credentials into a login form, and that unlinked accounts yield policy.denied with a mandated recovery path. It lacks details on side effects, rate limits, and whether sign_in changes session state, keeping it from a 5.

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 tightly structured: it opens with the scope (linked accounts), then enumerates each op in a single dense sentence, and closes with the failure behavior. Every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter multi-operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operations well and includes important error guidance. It remains incomplete because it does not explain the account or tabId parameters, and it does not describe what each op returns, leaving gaps that the schema does not fill.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the op enum and maps connector, method, path, and body to op=call, but it does not explain the account or tabId parameters at all, leaving key semantics undocumented.

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 resource (accounts linked in the Account Center) and enumerates four distinct operations, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling browser_call, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

It explains what each op does and provides a clear condition for failure: if an account is not linked, expect policy.denied and ask the person to link it. However, it does not compare this tool against sibling alternatives such as browser_call or browser_open, leaving the agent to infer when to choose one over the other.

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