browser_propose_skill

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

Since no annotations are provided, description carries full burden. It explains that the candidate is quarantined, not trusted until validation. Discloses the two components: action bundle and probe. Does not explicitly mention storage or side effects, but is fairly transparent.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with 'ACTIVE MEMORY (step 1 of 2)', and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, description explains the outcome (quarantine) and the two-step learning process. Lacks details on state persistence or limits, but is fairly complete for a tool in a multi-step flow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about assertions as end-state probes but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it is step 1 of 2 for creating a skill, proposing the current session as a candidate. It distinguishes from sibling 'browser_validate_skill' which validates the candidate.

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 says when to use (to learn a flow) and when not to trust the candidate until validation. Mentions the alternative 'browser_validate_skill' for the next step.

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