check

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the operation is idempotent, whether passing checked=false unchecks an element, how 'force' bypasses actionability checks, or what an error/timeout looks like. These are non-trivial behaviors for a mutation tool with 7 parameters.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — there is no second sentence that earns its place because no second sentence exists.

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 7-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool operating in a crowded sibling namespace, this description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently. It should at least cover ref/selector behavior and the semantics of checked and force.

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 only 57%, and the undocumented parameters (force, checked, timeout) are exactly the ones that need explanation. The description adds nothing about ref vs selector precedence, tab scoping, or what checked=false does, leaving the most consequential parameters ambiguous.

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 verb+object pair ('Set a checkbox or radio') disambiguates the generic tool name 'check' into a concrete browser action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like click, select, or fill, which can also flip a checkbox/radio state, so an agent must infer which to use.

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 statement of when to use this over click or select, no prerequisites (does the element need to be visible/in view?), and no note about ref vs selector precedence. Usage is only implied by the word 'checkbox or radio'.

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