browser_learn_site_quirk

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only conveys durability ('long-term knowledge library'). It says nothing about whether entries are deduplicated or overwritten, whether a domain/session must be active, whether the write is idempotent, or what confirmation comes back. For a persistence/write tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front and no filler. It is slightly redundant in re-enumerating quirk types that the schema's enum and property descriptions already cover, but the wording is efficient.

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?

With five fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description only needs to add behavior, not return values. It leaves idempotency, duplicate handling, and retrieval expectations unstated, which matters for a knowledge-library write tool that pairs with browser_get_site_memory.

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% with examples and an enum for category, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or prioritization guidance (e.g., how specific 'domain' should be, when to supply 'advice' vs 'selector') beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Records') and names the resource precisely ('site-specific quirk, pitfall, selector tip, or bypass rule') as well as the destination ('long-term knowledge library'). It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like browser_get_site_memory and from browser_save_recipe, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this after discovering a site-specific pitfall, but the description never states when to use this versus browser_save_recipe or browser_get_site_memory. No exclusions, prerequisites, or 'do not use for X' guidance is given.

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