oc_lane_create

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, destructive, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the profile behavior, including that scratch provisions and removes a temp directory. However, it does not mention error conditions, side effects on existing state, or whether the operation is safe to repeat.

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-loads the core purpose, and efficiently adds the crucial profile isolation detail. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic concept and profile modes but omits important context: what the return value is, how to reference the lane later, error conditions, and prerequisite that the taskId must refer to an existing task.

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 description adds significant extra context for the profile parameter, detailing the behavior of 'inherit' and 'scratch' beyond the schema. For other parameters, it adds little, but the profile explanation elevates the score.

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's purpose: 'Create a task-scoped browser lane on existing SessionManager worker/target primitives.' It explains the function of a lane ('isolate refs, tabs, and trace metadata') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oc_lane_close.

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 implies usage by stating it operates 'on existing... primitives' and explains the profile options, but it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it.

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