Record real-browser Provider web feedback

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the evidence is "time-limited" (implying TTL behavior), it requires the monitor to be stopped, and it mandates a confirmation token. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the action, then constraints. No wasted words; every clause adds information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 7 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers core purpose, key preconditions, and main parameter constraints. It leaves the "reason" parameter unexplained and the exact meaning of "exit fingerprint" is domain-specific, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the "status" parameter ("must be confirmed or rejected") and the "confirmation" parameter ("confirmation=RECORD_WEB_FEEDBACK"). It also implies "ttl_seconds" via "time-limited." However, it doesn't explain the "reason" parameter or optional config_path/provider_id semantics, so it's not fully complete.

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?

Description begins with "Record time-limited browser evidence..." which is a specific verb+object, and it distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating "This never switches a proxy." The tool clearly records observed exit fingerprint evidence for a Provider/node, making its purpose 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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: "requires the monitor to be stopped, mutation opt-in, and confirmation=RECORD_WEB_FEEDBACK." Also clarifies a key exclusion: "This never switches a proxy," which helps differentiate from failover/overlay tools. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools for when not to use this one, so it's not a perfect 5.

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