browser_storage_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds value by specifying what is saved (cookies, local storage) – which is additional behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention file format, overwrite behavior, or what happens if the file already exists, but given the annotations this is acceptable.

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 sentence (11 words) that conveys purpose, resource, and action. Every word contributes. No filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Save'.

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 has only 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations are rich, the description is sufficient. It covers the core scenario (saving state for reuse). It could mention that the file is intended to be used with a browser_storage_state (load) tool, but the sibling set implies that. Missing: no mention of session storage, but the description says 'cookies, local storage' already. Output format is not specified but that is acceptable without 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% (the only parameter 'filename' is fully described in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema – it just mentions 'Save storage state...', without elaborating on filename format, path resolution, or allowed characters. Thus 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 tool saves browser storage state (cookies, local storage) to a file for reuse. This is a specific verb (save) + resource (storage state) + purpose (for later reuse). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_storage_state (which would load) and other storage tools (browser_cookie_*, browser_localstorage_*, browser_sessionstorage_*). However, it does not explicitly name the complementary loader tool.

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 indicates when to use: before a state change that you might want to restore later ('for later reuse'). It implies 'when you want to persist the current session'. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned, but the context of persistence is clear given sibling tools like browser_cookie_set etc. that modify state.

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