browser_file_upload

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, destructive operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'upload'. It does not state side effects, how the file chooser is handled, or what happens after upload.

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?

The description is one short sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though very sparse; the minimalism is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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?

There is no mention of return values, prerequisites, or suitable call contexts. With no output schema and only a terse description, an agent gets the basic action but not enough to confidently invoke it alongside 23 sibling tools.

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 100%, and the paths parameter explains absolute paths, single/multiple files, and cancellation behavior. The description only paraphrases the schema without adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('files'), and clarifies single-or-multiple. It is immediately understandable and distinct from most browser siblings, though it does not explain what receiving context is used.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives such as browser_drop, or whether it should be called while a file chooser is open. The schema hint about cancellation is useful but does not appear in the description.

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