ie_configure_auth

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

Annotations provide only generic hints (all false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals side effects: 'Clears only this process's cached session, never logs the browser out,' and explains source-specific behavior. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent important safety-relevant context.

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 with no filler, each contributing distinct value: purpose, usage timing, side effects, and source edge cases. The most important action is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a configuration tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are not the description's job. The description covers when to use it, side effects, and source-specific behavior, but omits any explanation of the required `service` parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. It also does not say what 'persist' implies for future sessions beyond clearing cache. The overall picture is functional but incomplete.

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 indirectly covers browser, profile, and source ('browser selection', 'profile/source', 'Isolated'/'managed'), but it never explains the required `service` parameter (connects/blackboard). This is a meaningful gap for the one required field, though the other parameters receive partial context.

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 states a specific action ('Persist non-secret browser selection') and indicates it configures auth after a user chooses a profile/source. This distinguishes it from siblings like ie_login_start or ie_auth_status, though 'non-secret browser selection' is somewhat roundabout. Overall the core purpose is clear.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use after the user chooses a profile/source,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also differentiates source behavior ('Isolated needs no normal-browser extraction; managed uses OpenClaw port 18800'), which helps route the agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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