browser_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no idempotency semantics (what happens if already checked), no failure mode for a bad selector, and no waiting behavior, which matters for a state-mutating browser tool.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. Its brevity is under-specification rather than excess, so it is efficient but earns no extra credit.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. An agent can call it correctly, but the relationship to browser_uncheck and error/retry behavior remain undocumented.

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%: both session_id ('Session ID returned by browser_navigate') and selector ('CSS selector of the checkbox or radio element') are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no formatting or resolution detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Check a checkbox or radio button'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like browser_click and browser_fill. It does not, however, name its inverse browser_uncheck, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the direct alternative browser_uncheck or of browser_click for non-checkbox elements. The purpose sentence implies the use case but the description provides no routing help.

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