browser_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses execution order, fail-fast behavior ("se detiene en el primer error"), and that snapshot:true returns the final state. It omits what the error response looks like and whether partial results are returned or refs stay valid after earlier actions mutate the page.

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?

Front-loaded with the core claim, then the example, then the execution semantics—dense and waste-free. The example is inline rather than a separate block, which reads slightly compressed but nothing is superfluous.

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 2-param orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, missing pieces matter: no list of permitted inner tools, no error-payload description, no guidance on whether refs need re-snapshotting mid-batch. Adequate to call it, but an agent will likely need trial and error on failures.

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 50% and the actions array is opaque (tool is an unconstrained string), so the inline example {tool:"browser_click", args:{ref:12}} is genuinely additive—it shows the nested shape the schema never spells out. The description does not enumerate which tool names are legal inside actions, which is the biggest remaining gap.

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 states plainly that it runs several actions in ONE call and saves an agent turn per action, which distinguishes it from the single-action siblings like browser_click or browser_type. It stops short of naming those siblings as the alternative, but the batching purpose is unambiguous.

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?

"Úsala cuando ya sabes los pasos siguientes" gives a clear selection cue: use it for pre-planned sequences, not for adaptive flows that depend on intermediate observations. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls 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.