load_browser_item

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

The only behavioral hint beyond the annotations is the word 'guarded,' which is never explained. The description does not disclose the dry-run/confirmation-token workflow, the expectedStateVersion guard, or the fact that a non-dry-run load requires a short-lived token. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little behavioral context.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the core action is placed first. It is appropriately short, though it would benefit from a second sentence explaining the guarded/plan semantics.

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 complex two-phase operation with seven parameters, no output schema, and annotations that carry no confirmations, the description omits essential operational context: how planning differs from loading, what 'guarded' means, and why confirmationToken/planHash are needed. An agent could not reliably complete a guarded load from this description alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a description and the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description's 'guarded' and 'exact' add vague contextual flavor, but the schema carries the parameter semantic load, meriting the baseline 3.

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 a specific action ('Plan or load') and a specific resource ('one exact Live browser item') with a target track type, which is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling load_factory_browser_item, but 'exact' and 'ordinary/Return/Main track' narrow the scope enough to avoid confusion with search/metadata tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus load_factory_browser_item, get_browser_items, or search-related siblings. The phrase 'Plan or load' hints at two modes but provides no selection criteria or exclusions.

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