browser_highlight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming no destructive side effects. The description adds that the highlight is 'persistent' and an 'overlay', which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, concise sentence that clearly states the action and effect. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.

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 simple nature of the tool and good schema coverage, the description is nearly adequate. However, it does not mention that the highlight is visual-only and non-interactive, which could be helpful for an AI agent to understand the tool's scope. No output schema is provided, but the tool likely has no meaningful return value.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. It does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'style' for additional CSS, 'target' for reference, 'element' for permission). 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 clearly states the action ('show a persistent highlight overlay') and the target ('element on the page'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_hide_highlight or browser_hover, though it could be more explicit about the persistence aspect differentiating it.

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 the tool is for visually highlighting an element, but it does not specify when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., browser_hover for temporary attention, browser_hide_highlight for removal). No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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