browser_network_state_set

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's a destructive operation. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral consequence: 'When offline, all network requests will fail.' This contextualizes the side effect beyond the annotations alone, though it does not cover all potential impacts (e.g., existing connections).

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?

Two sentences: the first states the primary action, the second adds a key behavioral consequence. There is no fluff, and the critical information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter, annotations present, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers what it does and a major effect. It omits details like persistence across tabs or return value, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 already describes the 'state' parameter's enum values and their meanings. The description ('Sets the browser network state to online or offline') essentially restates the schema's purpose without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Sets the browser network state to online or offline') and a key consequence ('When offline, all network requests will fail'). It is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_network_requests (listing) or browser_route (intercepting).

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. The description does not include when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling network tools. For a tool with a destructive hint, this gap is notable.

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