browser_wait_human

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does explain that the tool blocks on a human operator and when to pass approvalId versus nothing. However, it omits important operational behavior such as timeout handling, what is returned after human action, and whether the wait is interruptible.

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 compact sentences and front-loads the core action. Every clause adds relevant usage or safety information without redundancy.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description should fully cover invocation behavior. It explains the human-wait contexts but leaves timeout semantics and return behavior unaddressed, which are important for an agent deciding how to call and interpret the tool.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains approvalId conditionally after approval.required, but never mentions the timeout parameter, leaving half of the parameters 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 action and target: waiting for the human operator. It explains the two human-interaction modes (approval and handoff), which helps distinguish it from normal browser_wait, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as an alternative.

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 gives explicit triggering conditions: use with approvalId after approval.required, or with no arguments after handoff.required for CAPTCHA or login. It also includes a clear prohibition against solving CAPTCHAs directly, though it does not contrast usage with browser_wait.

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