cloak_binary_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful operational context that structured fields do not provide: the operation may take several minutes and downloads roughly 200MB. It omits whether network access is required, whether the download is resumable or fails on partial progress, and whether an existing browser session is affected.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place, with the action front-loaded and the cost caveat immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action plus the notable time and size cost. It is nearly complete, lacking only prerequisites (network, restart behavior) and any hint of what a successful result looks like.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% and the input object is empty, matching the description's parameterless nature.

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 verb and resource: force CloakBrowser to check for and download the latest Chromium build. It is clearly not a navigation or fingerprint tool. It stops short of naming the closest sibling, cloak_binary_info, so the agent must infer the boundary between inspecting and updating the binary.

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 word 'Force' implies this is used when the agent wants to update rather than merely inspect the binary, which gives implied context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of checking the current version first (cloak_binary_info), and no conditions under which this should be avoided.

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