enable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Activate browser automation,' which is vague about side effects, whether activation is idempotent, if it resets state, or what happens if called repeatedly. It does not describe any prerequisites or consequences beyond being a first step.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Activate browser automation') and immediately followed by the key usage constraint. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 no output schema and few parameters, the description is adequate for a simple enable tool. It explains what it does and when to call it, which is the minimal viable context. However, it lacks detail about session lifecycle, idempotency, or interaction with the 'status' sibling, which would make it fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with both parameters (client_id, force_free) fully described in their own definitions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, this is a baseline 3; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Activate browser automation.' It also adds a critical scoping detail: 'Required first step before any browser interaction,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like disable and status. This is a precise, non-tautological 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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Required first step before any browser interaction.' This is a strong contextual signal, but it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., if already enabled) or name alternative tools (like disable). It lacks the 'when-not/alternatives' dimension needed for a 5.

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