chrome_upload_file

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the native file picker is not opened and that the Chrome DevTools file-input control is used, but it omits side effects, tab-focus behavior, and failure modes.

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 no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important negative behavior ('Does NOT open the native file picker') is stated immediately after the action.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how target tabs are resolved, what background mode means in practice, or what the tool returns or throws when invocation fails.

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 71%, so most parameters (paths, targetId, background, urlIncludes, titleIncludes) already have schema-level descriptions. The description adds the contextual idea of local files and a file-input element, but does not clarify the undocumented uid or selector fields.

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 opens with a specific action ('Attach local files to an <input type=file> element using Chrome DevTools file-input control') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling interaction tools like chrome_click and chrome_type. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does and how it differs from opening the native picker.

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 clear usage context: attaching local files to a file input, while explicitly ruling out native-picker automation. It does not name alternative tools or when-not conditions, but it gives enough for an agent to route to this tool correctly.

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