browserless_link_checkout

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation targets an exact existing session, resume must follow Link approval, and payment credentials never reach the tool. These are details not available from the schema or annotations.

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 lead with the operation verbs, then add the two most important preconditions. There is no filler or repetition of schema content; every sentence carries distinct guidance.

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?

The tool is complex (12 params, four modes, nested objects, no output schema), and the description clearly covers create and resume, the most stateful modes. Cancel and report semantics are left to the verb name plus schema parameter requirements, and there is no return-value description, but annotations and detailed parameter schema fill most gaps.

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?

The schema already documents every parameter with per-action requirements (e.g., 'Required for create'), so the description's main contribution is the temporal nuance 'latest browserless_agent sessionId' and grouping selectors as payment fields. That is useful but modest against a 100%-covered schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names four explicit operations (create, resume, cancel, report) on a specific resource (Stripe Link checkout) and scopes them to 'the exact active browser session', which separates it from session management or connection siblings. The verb+resource pairing is unambiguous and not a restatement of the tool name.

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 clear preconditions: create needs the latest browserless_agent sessionId and payment-field deep selectors, and resume is valid only after Link approval. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives or detail cancellation/report branching, so it stops short of a 5.

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