roxy_update_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update' and 'complete control' without mentioning side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The schema suggests partial updates via optional parameters, but the description does not confirm this.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse for a tool with 15 parameters and nested objects. It front-loads the purpose but lacks supporting detail. Every word is earned, but the brevity sacrifices completeness, making it less valuable than it could be.

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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the browser to update (e.g., required parameters workspaceId and dirId, though dirId is missing from the schema definition), nor does it describe return values or call behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not highlight any parameter relationships, defaults, or usage tips that would exceed what the schema provides.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('a browser'), with 'complete configuration control' specifying scope. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like roxy_create_browser (create), roxy_get_browser_detail (read), and roxy_delete_browsers (delete).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update versus creating a new browser. 'For expert users' is a user profile hint, not situational context. Prerequisites (e.g., browser ID) or exclusions are missing.

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