browser_save_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses that the write is persistent and later retrievable ('recalled and executed in seconds'), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However it is silent on the important mutation traits: what happens if a recipe with the same name already exists (overwrite vs. error), where the recipe is stored, and whether it is scoped per profile or globally.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy, front-loading the core action before the value proposition. Nothing is padded.

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 five-parameter persistent-write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and why but omits the operational details an agent needs: name-collision behavior, storage scope, and what is returned on save. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter including nested action semantics is already documented in the schema (name, domain, actions, notes, description). The description adds no further meaning to individual parameters, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it saves a multi-step workflow/macro as a persistent 'recipe'. The framing as 'muscle memory' and the note that recipes are recalled later makes the write-side role clear against the sibling browser_find_recipe, which is the read side. It stops short of naming that sibling 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?

The phrase 'for repetitive site tasks' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance such as 'use after browser_batch_actions succeeds' or 'use browser_find_recipe to recall'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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