Search, remove or clear browsing history

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by spelling out that clear "wipes everything" versus remove dropping a single page. The PlacesUtils internals sentence reads as justification rather than agent-relevant behavior, and irreversibility of clear is implied rather than stated.

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?

Front-loaded with the key distinction and the action mapping, but the "MEASURED: PlacesUtils.history exposes clear() and remove()..." sentence is implementation trivia that consumes roughly a third of the text without changing how an agent calls the tool.

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 destructive, four-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the actions, the destructive scope of clear, and the read-side sibling. A sentence on what search returns (shape/count) and on error behavior for a missing URL would close the remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying each enum value to an operation and noting that remove expects a url. Remaining gap: it never states that query/limit only apply to search or that remove needs the exact URL from the schema.

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 set (search, remove, clear) on a specific resource (browsing history) and explicitly positions itself as "the management half of history that browser_list_history does not cover." An agent can distinguish it from the read-only sibling without opening the schema.

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 explicit action-to-intent mapping: search to find entries, remove with a url to drop one page, clear to wipe everything. It names browser_list_history as the read-side alternative, but does not clarify when to use its own "search" action versus other history readers such as browser_traverse_history.

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