browser_set_cpu_throttling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the multiplier scale, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the setting persists across navigations, applies to the current tab or globally, or requires a restart/reset to undo.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical example values are the only elaboration and they earn their place.

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 one-parameter emulation toggle with no output schema, the core semantics are covered, but scope (tab vs global), persistence, and reset behavior are absent from both description and schema, leaving real gaps for an agent configuring a test environment.

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 already 100% with 'CPU slowdown multiplier', but the description goes further by anchoring the scale with concrete values (1.0 normal, 2.0 2x, 4.0 4x), which makes the multiplier immediately interpretable without experimentation.

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 ('Emulate slower CPU speeds'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling browser_network_throttling, so the agent must infer that this throttles CPU rather than network.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus browser_network_throttling or browser_performance_metrics, and no mention of restoring normal speed (rate=1.0) when finished. The agent is left to infer the workflow entirely.

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