playwright__browser_file_upload

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not disclose that this drives a file chooser, that paths are absolute local paths, or that omitting paths cancels the chooser. No contradiction with annotations, but the description contributes little beyond them.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant explanation, making it efficient and easy to parse. It is not a 5 because it is barely more informative than the title, but it is appropriately compact.

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 one-parameter browser tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the minimal description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves the file-chooser interaction and triggering context implicit, so the agent may not fully understand when or how the upload operation is invoked.

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 fully documents the single 'paths' parameter, including absolute paths, multiple-file support, and cancellation when omitted. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 gives a specific action verb ('Upload') and a clear resource ('one or multiple files'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like browser_drop or browser_type. It loses a point because it largely restates the tool name/title without adding a scope or boundary.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the conditions under which uploading applies. The only hint about cancellation behavior lives in the schema, not in the description, so the agent receives no usage direction.

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