Run several browser steps at once

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes further by disclosing that execution stops on failure or login/challenge, the session is handed off, and only unrun steps should be resumed. It also warns against including payment or final confirmation steps. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core usage condition, the second explains failure behavior, and the third gives a safety boundary. Every sentence 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?

For a batch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria, failure behavior, and safety constraints. It does not describe the return shape or how results from completed steps are surfaced, which is a minor gap, but the critical invocation decisions are well supported.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the session_id, steps, max_tokens, and include_snapshot parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details, which is acceptable given full schema coverage. It provides general behavioral guidance but not deeper parameter semantics.

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 runs multiple known reversible browser steps as a batch, which distinguishes it from the single-step sibling tools like steel_navigate, steel_act, and steel_wait_for. The title reinforces this by saying 'Run several browser steps at once.' It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the scope and specificity are strong enough to identify the tool's purpose.

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 provides a concrete inclusion criterion: use for known reversible steps whose later targets do not need a fresh read. It also gives exclusions by warning to stop before payment/final confirmation and noting the batch stops on login/challenge. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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