update_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the update happens without a browser restart and preserves the browsing session, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not clarify whether existing captured network data is retained or cleared, or whether the filter applies immediately to ongoing monitoring. This is a significant side-effect that remains ambiguous.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded. It states the primary action first, followed by two caveats that add value. Every phrase earns its place with no repetitive or unnecessary 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?

The tool has a nested parameter and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and why it is useful, but it omits crucial operational context such as whether a monitor must be running, what the response looks like, and the effect on existing captured data. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, these gaps leave the description only partially complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool-level description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's rich field descriptions, defaults, and examples do the heavy lifting, so the description adds minimal extra value.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the specific resource (network monitoring filter settings). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_monitor, stop_monitor, and get_recent_requests by focusing on modifying configuration rather than lifecycle or retrieval. The added context about preserving the browsing session reinforces its distinct purpose.

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 description implies the tool is used when you want to change filter settings without restarting the browser and without losing the current session. This gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if monitoring is not active) or name alternative approaches, so it stops short of a full 'when/when-not' guideline.

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