browser_set_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does solid work: tries native value-set, Input.insertText typing, and ARIA-based picker navigation in sequence, with read-back verification. It does not disclose failure behavior, side effects like the calendar widget popping open, or what the call returns, which prevents a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the purpose, the covered input types, the strategy sequence, and verification; the second hands the agent the decision rule against browser_fill. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the combination of strategy, supported frameworks, read-back verification, and the fallback routing to browser_fill is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is no indication of return/error signals, which is not covered by an output schema.

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 100%, so date (ISO string), selector (CSS selector), and skip_picker (skip calendar navigation) are already fully documented. The description adds only a marginal hint about masked vs ISO date format and mostly restates what the schema already conveys, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — 'Robustly set a date input' — and enumerates the concrete input types it covers (native date inputs, masked text inputs, and calendar pickers for MUI, react-datepicker, AntD, Lexical/Meta), making the scope unambiguous. It also explicitly names browser_fill as the sibling it replaces, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 gives an explicit decision rule: 'Use instead of browser_fill when fill fails or for any input that opens a calendar widget,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. It does not spell out negative exclusions (e.g., defer to browser_fill for plain non-date inputs), so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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