browser_handle_dialog

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds no useful behavioral context. It does not explain side effects of accepting, behavior for dismissed dialogs, or how promptText is used for prompt dialogs.

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 short but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It simply restates the tool name and does not use its space to convey any additional operational meaning.

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 destructive browser action with no output schema, the description is too minimal to support correct invocation. It omits when dialog handling is needed, how promptText should be used, and what effects accepting or not accepting has.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but the schema already explains accept and promptText adequately.

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 'Handle a dialog' exactly restates the tool name/title and uses the generic verb 'handle' without explaining what handling entails. It does not clarify whether the tool accepts, dismisses, or fills in dialog text, nor does it distinguish it from other browser tools.

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 use this tool, such as when a native browser dialog appears, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description provides no practical selection context beyond what the tool name implies.

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