browser_reset_links

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the invalidation scope ('every open browser tab and every browser link made before'), the user-visible symptom ('Session ended'), and the persistence semantics (tokens survive restarts). The one remaining gap is whether the previously issued tokens can ever be recovered or whether the call returns the new token.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool does and following with the side effect and the restart contrast. Every clause carries information the 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema mutation this covers purpose, blast radius, and the relationship to restarts, which is most of what an agent needs to decide to call it. It does not say what the call returns or whether the agent should warn the user first, which is the only meaningful omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 ('Give the browser view a new secret token') and immediately names the observable consequence ('every open browser tab and every browser link made before stops working'). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling browser_link, which creates links rather than rotating the token.

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?

It gives a positive selection rule ('this is the way to change it') and contrasts against an alternative behavior by noting 'Restarts keep the token', which implicitly routes the agent away from restart_server for token rotation. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or any prerequisite/confirmation step before invalidating all open tabs.

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