browser_remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful detail: refs are resolved to durable selectors with backups before saving and survive page reloads. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return values, but the persistence guarantee is a valuable disclosed trait.

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 three short sentences with the action front-loaded, a concrete JSON example, and a pointer to the sibling recall tool. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 simple two-parameter save tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics, durability, and the recall path. It lacks notes on overwrite behavior or return values, but the included example and explicit persistence detail make the tool sufficiently documented for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema only provides types, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that name is a semantic page name and refs is a mapping of symbolic names to selectors, reinforced by the loginPage example. This is solid parameter guidance, though it stops short of edge-case constraints like uniqueness or accepted selector formats.

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 names a specific action (save current refs), a resource (refs under a semantic page name), and the purpose (later reuse). It also references the recall sibling tool, helping an agent distinguish it from browser_recall, browser_forget, and browser_memory_list.

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 gives clear context: use this when current refs should be stored for reuse later, and it explicitly points to browser_recall for retrieval. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternative storage tools, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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