browser_resume

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: approval is limited to a single pending action ('approval is scoped to that action'), which is security-relevant and not inferable from the boolean schema. However it omits session lifecycle effects, failure behavior, and permission/auth requirements, leaving notable gaps for a 6-parameter mutation 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the continuation purpose is front-loaded and the scoping constraint on approval is tightly attached. Every clause carries 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?

Despite an output schema existing, this is a complex 6-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and 17% schema coverage, and the description leaves key parameters (allowed_domains, goal_update format, dialog semantics) and their interaction unexplained. It is under-specified for its complexity.

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 only 17% (only 'session' is documented), so the description must compensate. It loosely maps language to values, goal_update, and approval, but says nothing about allowed_domains, the dialog object fields, secret_ref/origins, or how allow_irreversible differs from dialog.accept.

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+resource ('Continue an existing session') and lists the three concrete things it can do (supply missing values, refine the goal, approve a pending irreversible action). It distinguishes itself from browser_run by emphasizing continuation 'after a handoff', though it doesn't explicitly route against the other browser_* siblings.

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?

The phrase 'after a handoff' implies the trigger context and 'an existing session' implies you need a session from browser_run, but no alternative tools are named and there are no when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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