set_automation_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the simple action by stating that the change does not persist, does not reload the extension, and that BROWSERTAP_MODE governs future processes. These are exactly the side-effect and persistence details an agent needs before invoking.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second delivers the critical persistence warning. Every clause earns its place and the most important behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is complete: it defines what the tool does, what profiles are valid, the process scope, and the non-persistence behavior. No critical selection or invocation detail is missing given the available structured metadata.

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 0% and the only parameter is an unconstrained string "mode" with no enum. The description compensates by defining the meaningful values as "safe" or "lab" and tying them to the automation profile concept. It adds real semantics, though it leaves the exact accepted string format slightly implicit.

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 identifies a specific verb ("Set"), a clear resource ("automation profile"), and a process scope ("for this MCP process"). It also names the two modes, "safe" and "lab", which distinguishes this setter from its sibling getter get_automation_profile without ambiguity.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool to set the automation profile for the current MCP process. It also provides an important when-not signal: "This does not persist or reload the extension; BROWSERTAP_MODE controls the next process." It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the complementary get_automation_profile is implied by the setter/getter pairing.

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