Export Storage State

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

The description adds sensitivity details about the exported file containing cookies, tokens, etc., which goes beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (so writing) and non-destructive, consistent with description. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each essential: purpose, preconditions/usage, sensitivity. Front-loads the main action. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 has an output schema and 5 parameters, the description adequately covers when to use, preconditions, and data sensitivity. It does not describe the output structure but that is covered by the output schema. Missing details like the file format (Playwright storageState) but assumed known.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions acknowledgeRawCapture and acknowledgeCredentialAccess in context but does not explain their role or any other parameter (maxBytes, indexedDB, outputPath). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 exports a Playwright storageState file for reproduction/transfer, specifying the exact resource and purpose. It implicitly differentiates from sibling import_storage_state by focusing on export.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context ('full-profile authorized workflow needing storageState file'), preconditions (acknowledge flags, protected output path), and post-usage instructions. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to related tools like browser_get_state.

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