start_browser_login

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two substantive traits: it launches a headed (visible) browser window, and it never accepts passwords. This security constraint is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot convey. It stops short of describing the session lifecycle — whether a session is created, how long the window waits, or what state results.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the security constraint second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 simple one-parameter launcher with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the execution mode, and a key safety limit. The one real gap is the handoff: nothing tells the agent that human interaction must occur and that a follow-up sibling such as complete_browser_login or get_browser_auth_status is the next step.

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 0% for the single enum parameter, so the schema only lists linkedin and naukri without explaining them. The description's phrase "the selected provider login page" adds the meaningful implication that the provider determines which login URL opens, but offers no further semantics for the two values.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Open") with a specific resource ("the selected provider login page") and names the mechanism (headed Playwright window). This distinguishes it from siblings like complete_browser_login and get_browser_auth_status, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

"for manual login and MFA" implies the situation that calls for this tool, so usage is inferable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus complete_browser_login, and no statement of prerequisites such as when a session must already exist or what to do after the user logs in.

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