Hand the browser to a person

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

The description adds behavior not visible in annotations: the tool pauses the current flow, grants exclusive human control, and resumes only after hand-back. This goes beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations to explain the handoff lifecycle.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every phrase 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?

For a two-parameter handoff tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what happens, when to use it, and how the handoff is resolved. No output schema is needed because the behavior is the primary contract.

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 100% and already documents both parameters. The description still adds value by mapping the reason enum to concrete scenarios (sensitive input, local files, review, or any manual step), which helps an agent choose the correct value.

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?

Description states a clear action—'Pause for a person to take exclusive control of this same live browser'—and the title reinforces the handoff behavior. It is easily distinguished from sibling session/automation tools, which all operate under agent control.

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 explicitly lists when to use it: 'sensitive input, local files, review, or any manual step.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use-case list is sufficient guidance for an agent.

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