browser_set_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does disclose the banner behavior and the CSP-related rationale, but it does not explain whether changing the option affects the current session, requires reconnection, or has other side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the decision-relevant guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 single-boolean session option with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the default, the banner effect, and when to diverge. It could mention whether this should be called before or after browser initialization, but that gap is minor for such a simple tool.

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 schema already documents the parameter's basic meaning, and the description adds important semantics: the default value and the specific condition for enabling it. This goes beyond a restatement of the parameter description.

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 it sets session options and identifies the specific option (use_debugger). It is distinct enough from sibling browser actions because it addresses session-level configuration rather than navigation or interaction, though it could more strongly name itself as the only session-config tool.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to set use_debugger=true: only when scripting fails on CSP-strict sites, with false as the default to avoid the yellow banner. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but none are relevant given the unique purpose.

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