browser_paste

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers targeting logic and supported content types, but does not explain whether pasting replaces or appends content, error behavior, or permission requirements. This is sufficient but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and supported content types, followed by fallback behavior. No redundant words; every sentence 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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (9 parameters), the description covers main use cases and fallback but omits return value, error handling, and clarification of whether pasting appends or replaces content. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 description explains the role of key parameters (ref, selector, role, name as targeting mechanisms) and lists supported content types, adding meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 56%, so the description compensates for undocumented parameters like ref and selector.

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 tool pastes clipboard-style text and/or files into a target, specifying supported content types. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_file_upload or browser_fill_form, but does not explicitly differentiate itself, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explains fallback target behavior (focused element then document body), providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives among siblings, such as browser_file_upload for file inputs.

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