chrome_highlight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the visual effects of both styles and notes that the highlight persists until cleared with chrome_clear_highlight, which is important context. It does not mention side effects like DOM mutation or interaction blocking, but the tool is non-destructive and low-risk.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, defines both style options, and points to the clearing tool. No wasted words.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter semantics, and lifecycle (how to clear). The sibling tool reference provides necessary context. Nothing essential 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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description enriches the 'style' parameter by explaining the specific visual behavior of each enum value ('spotlight' dims the page, 'pulse' draws an outline). The 'selector' parameter is adequately described by the schema as a CSS selector.

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 clearly states the tool applies Keynote-style emphasis to an element, with two named styles ('spotlight' and 'pulse') and their visual effects. It distinguishes itself from sibling chrome_clear_highlight by explicitly saying how to clear it.

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 implies when to use the tool (to emphasize an element) and references chrome_clear_highlight for removal, serving as a complementary alternative. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but for a simple visual utility this is sufficient.

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