flow_browser_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait: credentials, TOTP secrets, cookies, and one-time codes are never accepted, typed, stored, or logged, so the agent knows not to attempt to pass secrets. It omits other operational traits such as whether the call blocks until login completes, whether it times out, or whether the resulting session persists for later browser tools.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second states the security constraint that shapes agent behavior. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what happens on return, and it doesn't — whether the call waits for manual login, returns immediately, or fails if no browser is available. Given the sibling set includes check_session and browser_action, a sentence on sequencing would materially improve completeness.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly introduces none; there is nothing about the input that needs clarification. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-parameter tool.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource — opening the persistent browser profile at Google sign-in — which is far more specific than a mere restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with flow_browser_check_session or flow_browser_autopilot, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Complete login manually' implies this is a human-in-the-loop entry point and not something to automate, but the description never says when to call it versus flow_browser_check_session, nor what to do afterwards (re-check session, retry, etc.). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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