browser_launch_profile

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden by itself. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — that it skips the profile picker and opens the window directly — and accepts three identifier forms. It omits what happens when the profile name does not match, whether Chrome must already be installed/running, and what the caller receives back (no output schema exists to answer that).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the picker-bypass detail; nothing is filler. Slightly redundant in re-listing the identifier forms that the schema already states.

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 two-parameter launch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, input forms, and the optional URL case adequately. The main residual gap is return value/error behavior when the profile is not found or the launch fails.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the three accepted profile identifier forms (name, folder like "Profile 13", email). The description restates the same forms rather than adding new semantics such as case sensitivity or match precedence when a name and folder collide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("Launches a ... Google Chrome user profile window") and even states the exact mechanism being bypassed ("Bypasses the Chrome profile picker dialog entirely"). It does not explicitly name the sibling it is distinct from — browser_list_profiles, the obvious discovery counterpart — so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 description makes the use case reasonably clear: open a new Chrome window already loaded in a named profile. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over browser_new_tab/browser_navigate, and no note that browser_list_profiles should be called first to discover valid profile identifiers.

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