Check Form Control

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

Annotations already mark as destructive and not read-only. The description adds value by detailing sensitivity: can submit data, mutate remote state, expose traces. This provides context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Four sentences, each serves a purpose: purpose, preconditions, next steps, side effects. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical usage context.

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 3 parameters, destructive hint, and output schema present, the description covers usage and side effects but omits parameter details and default behavior (e.g., what happens when 'checked' is omitted). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention selector, checked, or timeoutMs. The purpose hint (checkbox/radio) is weak compensation. Agents would need additional inference.

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 is for checking or unchecking checkbox/radio controls, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type by focusing on the specific control type.

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 gives clear context for when to use (checkbox/radio) and preconditions (active page, precise selector). It doesn't explicitly exclude other input types but the purpose is narrow enough. Sibling tools cover other interactions.

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