browser_paste

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 behavior: it simulates a real paste event and either pastes the provided text or the clipboard contents when text is omitted. It does not, however, mention potential limitations such as the element needing to be focused or editable, or how invalid refs are handled. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional behavior (clipboard fallback) is stated clearly. Every word 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?

The description covers the essential action and the two input modes, but it omits return value information (no output schema) and does not mention prerequisites like element focus or editability. For a simple paste tool, this is acceptable but could be more thorough given the absence of annotations and 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 50%: only 'text' has a description in the schema, and 'ref' does not. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'text' by explaining the two modes (given text vs clipboard). It does not explain what 'ref' is beyond 'by ref', so the agent must infer from prior context. This partially compensates for the missing schema description but leaves 'ref' undefined.

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 pastes into an element by ref using a real paste event, and explicitly distinguishes it from typing for rich editors. It names specific target platforms (Google Docs, Notion, contenteditable), making the purpose and differentiation unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear guidance on when to use this tool over typing ('rich editors handle this better than typing'), implying it should be used for contenteditable scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like browser_type or browser_press_key, nor does it state when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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