Grant Browser Permissions

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds moderate value by explaining sensitivity: 'permissions expose device-like capabilities and can change what the target page may access.' This provides context beyond the annotations, but does not detail side effects or revocation.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: purpose, preconditions, and sensitivity/next steps. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no redundant or vague language.

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 (permission grant with preconditions and sensitivity), the description covers when to use it, prerequisites, and behavioral implications. With an output schema present, return values are handled elsewhere, making this fairly complete. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or handling denied permissions.

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 compensate. It provides examples for the 'permissions' parameter (geolocation, notifications, etc.) and implies that 'acknowledgePermissionChange' should be true via preconditions. However, the 'origin' parameter is not explained, leaving it unclear.

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: granting browser permissions like geolocation, notifications, camera, or microphone. It uses a specific verb ('grant') and resource ('browser permissions'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on permission management, not navigation or DOM interaction.

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 usage guidance: 'Use when a full-profile authorized test explicitly requires browser permissions' and lists preconditions (acknowledgePermissionChange: true, minimal permission list). It also suggests next steps ('run the permission-dependent flow') and warns against granting unrelated capabilities. However, it does not mention alternatives because no other sibling tool performs this function.

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