browse_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this triggers change/input events, whether an upload request is awaited, whether the path is local vs remote, or what happens on failure.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no room for any of the operational detail an agent needs.

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?

A two-required-parameter browser tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. The description should cover at minimum when the tool applies and how the file path is interpreted; it covers neither.

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 0% and the description adds nothing: `selector` and `file_path` are only named in the schema titles. The plural 'files' versus the singular `file_path` even creates ambiguity about whether multiple files can be set.

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 and resource: setting files on an `input[type=file]` element. This is precise enough to distinguish it from generic browse_fill/browse_type in intent, though it never names those alternatives 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer browse_fill or browse_type instead, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the page must be open and the selector must target a file input). The agent must infer all of this.

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