browser_mock_geolocation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core effect (returning a fixed position), the scope (current page only), and the reset mechanism (clear=true). However, it does not mention default behavior when latitude/longitude are omitted, nor does it describe accuracy defaults or side effects on other tabs. It is transparent about the essential behaviors but leaves a few edge cases unstated, so a 4 is fair.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing the essential usage caveats. Every sentence adds value with no filler, and the structure is easy to scan. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain all relevant context. It covers the core effect, scope, and clearing, but leaves out how to actually set the coordinates (which parameters to use) and what happens if lat/lon are absent. For a tool with four optional parameters, this is an incomplete picture, though the tool is simple enough that a 3 is appropriate rather than lower.

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 describes 'clear' and 'accuracy' but leaves 'latitude' and 'longitude' without any description (50% coverage). The description fails to mention these parameters at all, so an agent cannot infer that they specify the mocked position. Since the description must compensate for the schema gaps but does not, the parameter semantics are notably weak.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Make navigator.geolocation return a fixed position'. It clearly states what the tool does and its purpose (bypassing permission prompts for location-gated tasks). There is no sibling tool for geolocation, so no ambiguity exists; this is a strong, specific purpose statement.

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 says 'Pass clear=true to stop mocking' and 'Applies to the current page; re-set after navigation', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to instructions. It does not name alternatives because none exist among siblings, but the usage conditions are concrete and actionable, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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