chrome_pairing_setup

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

Annotations already declare the operation destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the secret is never returned, both the extension and .env are updated, and a worker restart is required to enforce the change. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the security guarantee and the enforcement step. Every sentence carries practical information for invoking the tool correctly.

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 setup tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, dual update target, non-return of the secret, and required restart. It could state prerequisites such as an active connected extension, but annotations already cover the safety profile and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 single rotate parameter is already documented in the schema as rotating even if token authentication is configured. The description only implies configure-vs-rotate behavior and adds no syntax or additional parameter meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 (configure/rotate), resource (Chrome bridge pairing token), and dual target (connected extension and .env). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like chrome_status or chrome_extension_reload, which handle page or extension state rather than pairing credentials.

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?

The description says to restart the MCP worker afterward and the schema notes rotate behavior, so some usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of chrome_status, chrome_extension_reload, or other chrome tools, and it names no when-not conditions or alternatives.

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