browser_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool overwrites the current file input, whether it supports multiple files (though the schema allows up to 16 paths), whether it waits for upload completion, or what happens if a path is invalid. It also lacks any mention of authentication or permissions.

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 very short at one sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks front-loading of critical constraints and could be better organized with additional context at the expense of length.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (3 parameters including a complex locator object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how paths map to file inputs, what 'registered upload roots' are, or what the return value indicates. The agent would likely need to guess or fail, especially without documentation on collaboration_id usage.

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 33% (only the 'locator' field has a description). The description does not add meaning for 'paths' or 'collaboration_id' beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of paths, relationship to upload roots). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does so only minimally by mentioning 'machine-local registered upload roots'.

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 clearly states the action ('set one file input') and the resource ('paths inside machine-local registered upload roots'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_download and browser_click, as uploading files via file input is a distinct operation. However, it could more explicitly contrast with other file-related 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like needing a pre-existing file input element on the page, or that the upload roots must be pre-registered. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool suggestions are provided.

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