browse_launch_edge

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses CDP port fallback behavior, profile copying, and that login cookies survive, but it does not explain side effects of refresh_profile, whether an existing browser is affected, or what verification actually returns.

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 mostly front-loaded and structured, with the main action first and reasons after. The note about the legacy tool name is useful but slightly verbose; otherwise there is little waste.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema launch tool with one undocumented parameter, the description is adequate but not complete. It should explain refresh_profile and clarify what 'verify the port listens' means to the caller.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the port parameter well, including the special value 0 and default/fallback ports, but says nothing about refresh_profile, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: launch an installed browser (Edge/Chrome) with a CDP debug port on a dedicated profile copy. It also explains the legacy tool-name spelling and how the config selects the engine, which lets an agent distinguish this from sibling tools like browse_open.

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 gives a rationale ('Chromium 136+ ignores --remote-debugging-port') that implies when this tool is necessary, but it never explicitly says when to use this instead of browse_open or other browser tools, nor when not to use it.

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