web_profile

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses that the archive is encrypted, that the password is required, and that no unencrypted form exists — meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, though it omits what import does if a profile already exists or whether export overwrites.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the rationale, then the password constraint. Slightly compressed phrasing ('Use so a challenge a person passed once...') but every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and thin annotations, it covers the three actions, the encryption guarantee, and where files land. Minor gaps remain around error/overwrite behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, so parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the required-password constraint and clarifies that list works on profiles saved by web_login, but adds little beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move a logged-in browser profile between machines') and enumerates the three modes export/import/list with what each does. It clearly separates this tool from the web_login sibling, which it names.

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 an explicit rationale for when to use it — so a challenge a person passed once with web_login is not repeated elsewhere — which is strong context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer list over export/import or any exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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