browserless_live_url

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: the server-side defaults for create (view-only, jpeg, quality 70, not resizable, interface shown) and lifecycle edge cases (ended links stay inspectable until the browser closes; closing an ended link returns not found). It does not state auth requirements or what 'close' destroys for the browser itself.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and action set, followed by defaults and then return/lifecycle detail. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the final lifecycle sentence packs several distinct facts together.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description carries the important load: it enumerates the status response fields (status, reason, interactable, viewerCount, expiresAt) and explains the create defaults and lifecycle. Remaining gaps are the undocumented `instructions` parameter and any timeout detail, which the schema partially covers.

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 36% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so for the create options by stating their defaults (view-only/interactable, jpeg/type, quality 70, resizable, showBrowserInterface) and for the action/liveURLId lifecycle. The `instructions` parameter is left unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Names the specific verb set (create, inspect, close), the resource (live viewer link), and the scope constraint (existing browser, over REST). The phrase 'without an agent connection' implicitly separates it from browserless_agent, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

The three actions are stated, and 'for an existing browser... without an agent connection' gives clear context for when this applies versus agent-driven siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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