browser_workflow_remember

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses content restrictions and the act of saving, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites, returns an ID, or requires prior verification). It is adequate but not fully transparent about what happens on save.

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, no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by concise content rules. 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?

Given 14 parameters and high schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and content constraints well. It doesn't explain return values or error behavior, but for a save tool with no output schema, that is minor. The guidance about what not to store is valuable and the overall definition is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds semantic guidance (e.g., store durable UI labels, avoid transient refs) that aligns with parameter descriptions like 'selectors' and 'steps'. This enriches meaning beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline 3.

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 verb 'Save' and the resource 'verified reusable workflow', with context of 'after discovering or completing a browser task'. It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like browser_workflow_recall (retrieve) and browser_workflow_forget (delete), and the purpose is 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 specifies when to use (after discovering or completing a task) and provides explicit negative guidance (do not store passwords, one-time codes, or transient refs). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a save operation.

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