launch_chrome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the two-phase confirmation behavior that governs side effects, which is genuinely useful. It does not mention persistent side effects such as profile creation or window lifetime, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the confirm protocol. No filler and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow and even indicates the first call returns instructions rather than launching. Missing only minor detail on what state the subsequent launch leaves behind.

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% and the single confirm parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Set to true to actually launch Chrome.' The description restates this without adding new format or default detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action and resource ('Launch a dedicated Chrome window with GoHighLevel') and clearly separates this tool from its sibling test_connection by naming the failure condition that selects it. An agent can identify this tool 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Call this when test_connection fails because Chrome is not running') and a precise two-step protocol: first call without confirm to get instructions, then confirm=true after user agreement. Both when-to-use and the sequencing are spelled out.

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