browser_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses first-failure abort, that steps aiming by number are skipped after a page-changing step, and that a fresh snapshot is returned. It omits how a partial failure is reported back (which step failed, what state the tab is left in), which matters for a batch of up to 10 actions.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage rule, then the failure behavior, then an edge-case tip — a sensible ordering. Some phrasing is wordier than needed ('all aimed with the numbers of one snapshot', 'after a step the browser says changed the page'), but no sentence is 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 complex orchestrating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return value, ordering constraint, and abort behavior. The main gap is error reporting granularity on partial batch failure, which an agent would want before committing 10 steps to one call.

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 75% and already documents tabId/windowId/snapshotId/args, but the description adds the crucial coupling: all action numbers come from one snapshot, and a step may carry its own snapshot id in args. It does not restate the 10-action cap or the allowed tool enum, though those are 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Run several page actions on one tab in a row ... then get a fresh snapshot back — one call instead of one per step.' It also names the mechanism (shared snapshot numbering) that distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools like browser_click or browser_input_text.

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?

Explicit positive case ('tick two filters, fill three fields that are already on screen') and explicit negative case ('Do not put a step in that aims at something an earlier step makes appear') with the reason (the number does not exist yet). It even covers the degenerate case: 'Worth using for a single action too.'

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