browser_press_hold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers non-obvious behavioral detail: the exact event sequence (mousePressed, mouseMoved jitter, mouseReleased) that an agent could not infer. It omits what wait_seconds controls and whether the hold can be interrupted, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mechanism, then the use case. No filler; every clause contributes.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers action, mechanism, and purpose for a browser interaction tool. The main gap is the unexplained wait_seconds parameter, which is a moderate rather than critical omission.

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 0% and there are 5 parameters. The description implies x, y (viewport coordinates) and duration, but never names duration_ms, and wait_seconds is completely undocumented in both schema and description. Only a fraction of the parameters are compensated for.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: 'Sustained mouse press at viewport pixel (x, y) for a given duration.' The word 'sustained' and 'press-and-hold' clearly distinguish it from the click/mouse_click siblings in the list.

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?

Gives explicit usage contexts ('press-and-hold verification challenges or long-press interactions'), which tells the agent when this is the right tool versus a normal click. It stops short of naming browser_click/browser_mouse_click as alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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