browser_storage

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important per-origin semantics and tab targeting, which is real added context. It does not flag that clear/remove are destructive, whether set overwrites silently, or what snapshot/restore do to existing state.

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-line summary plus a tight, front-loaded argument list. Every line carries information (requiredness, op-specific value shape, origin caveat); no filler.

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 5-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers inputs and the key runtime constraint well. It omits return shape for get/list/snapshot and destructive-op warnings, which a caller would benefit from but which are not strictly blocking.

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 fully compensates: it documents kind, all seven op values, that key is required for get/set/remove, that value is a string for set but a key→value dict for restore, and tab_id's role. Nothing material is left to the schema's bare titles.

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 resource (localStorage/sessionStorage) and a verb-ish operation set, enumerated via the op values. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_cookies and browser_cache. It stops short of a full prose statement of purpose, but the arg block effectively defines scope.

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?

Gives a genuinely useful runtime guideline: storage is per-origin, so prefer a tab already at the right origin. It does not say when to choose storage access over browser_cookies or browser_js, nor any prerequisites/ordering. Adequate but no alternatives routing.

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