auth_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool writes the current session's auth state to a named JSON file at a specific path, which is a concrete side effect. It does not mention overwrite behavior or security implications of stored auth state, but for a save-related convenience wrapper the key behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the target path and an illustrative example, and every clause contributes useful 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, this description is nearly complete. It names the underlying storage_state_save operation and the exact output location, though it does not spell out what 'auth state' includes or what happens if the destination file already exists.

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?

The schema already documents the 'name' parameter with examples, and the description adds meaningful context by showing exactly how the parameter is used: it becomes the filename in ~/.camoufox-mcp/sessions/<name>.json. This goes beyond the schema's static description and clarifies the parameter's real effect.

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 ('Save current session as named auth state') with a clear resource (current session) and output (named auth state). It also gives an example ('logged-in user') and distinguishes itself by naming storage_state_save as the underlying wrapper, so an agent can tell it apart from related session/save tools.

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 explicitly references storage_state_save and shows the default target path, giving an agent a clear sense of when this convenience wrapper is appropriate. It does not explicitly state exclusions, such as 'use storage_state_save for custom paths,' but the wrapper relationship strongly implies the usage context.

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