browser_file_upload

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (potential side effects) and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not elaborate on. It does not mention that the upload may open a file dialog, require an active file input, or that omitting paths cancels the operation (though this is covered in the schema).

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 extremely concise at just four words, with no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., including a note about the file chooser or multiple file support) without losing conciseness.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool interacts with the browser environment, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain what happens after upload (e.g., whether the tool waits for completion, if the page refreshes, or how to verify success). The schema covers cancellation, but the overall usage context is insufficiently described for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) of the 'paths' parameter, including a description that explains its meaning and the cancellation behavior. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema.

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 verb 'Upload' and the resource 'one or multiple files', which is specific and distinct from all sibling browser tools that focus on clicks, navigation, form filling, etc. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies that this tool is used for uploading files via the browser, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it (e.g., after navigating to a page with a file input) or when not to (e.g., if the goal is to download files). No alternative tools are mentioned.

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