browsers_bind

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it does not open tabs by itself, and its effect is a binding that applies to later tools. What is missing is the binding's lifetime/scope (session vs global, whether it resets), which matters for a stateful setter.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect scope, followed by the prerequisite and the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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 one-parameter stateful setter with no output schema, the definition covers action, prerequisite, side-effect boundary, and the read-only alternative — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the persistence scope of the binding, which an agent may need when chaining calls across sessions.

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 the single parameter is documented as "browserId from browsers_list"; the description only reinforces that provenance. With one well-documented parameter, the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set the active browserId") plus the scope of its effect ("for subsequent chat/project/job tools"), which tells an agent exactly what changes and what is affected. It also implicitly separates itself from browsers_list (source of the id) and browsers_status (read-only inspector).

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?

Gives explicit ordering ("Call after browsers_list") and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ("Prefer browsers_status to inspect the current binding without changing it"). No inference is required to decide when to use this versus its siblings.

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