Hide automation markers from pages

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the mechanism (document-level preload), the measured before/after behavior, and honest limits — it is not an undetectability promise, and other signals can still expose automation. Reversibility is stated via remove:true. The one gap is it never frames the destructiveHint=true implication (that the patch persists for all future documents until undone).

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 core effect is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the measured rationale and the caveat. It is on the denser side, but every sentence — including the 'MEASURED' evidence and the limits clause — carries useful information.

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 one-parameter toggle with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what changes, why, how to reverse it, and what it does not guarantee.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'default false = install'. The description reinforces this with 'Pass remove:true to undo', adding the undo framing but no syntax or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and mechanism: it registers a BiDi preload script that reports navigator.webdriver as false in every new document. The title-plus-description pairing makes the effect unambiguous, and no sibling tool overlaps this capability.

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?

Gives clear context for use (anti-bot checks reading navigator.webdriver) and explicitly documents the inverse operation via remove:true to undo. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but no sibling offers equivalent functionality, so there is nothing to route against.

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