browser_file_upload

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

The description adds no behavioral insight beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not disclose that uploading involves interacting with the browser's file dialog, that it may trigger network requests, or that files are sent to the current page. Since annotations already exist, the description should provide additional behavioral context, but it does not.

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 extremely concise with one short sentence containing no filler. However, it lacks any structure such as bullet points or separation of concerns. For its brevity, it earns high marks but could be slightly more organized if expanded.

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's destructive nature (destructiveHint=true) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the typical use case (filling file upload fields in a browser), necessary page conditions, or that the paths parameter can cancel the dialog. The annotations and schema fill some gaps, but the description itself is insufficient for complete context.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description for 'paths' is thorough, so the tool description's restatement adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not harm but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Upload one or multiple files' clearly specifies the verb (upload) and resource (files), but omits the context of uploading to a browser page's file input element. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_drop which handles file drop, though not explicitly. Overall specific but could be more precise about the target.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_drop), or on prerequisites such as being on a page with a file input. The description does not clarify that the paths parameter expects absolute local paths, nor does it mention that omitting paths cancels the upload. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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