set_site_permission

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context: restoration attempts, mode-dependent prompt behavior, requires_user_action.reason values, no grant on unsuccessful approval, and manual_recovery semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and later sentences provide useful edge-case details not inferable from schema or annotations. The paragraph is dense and a bit run-on, but every sentence contributes meaningful behavioral information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent operation with no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers supported inputs, failure reasons, and recovery semantics well. However, the required 'setting' parameter and 'session_id' remain undefined, so an agent cannot fully construct a valid call from the description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters itself. It clarifies origin (http/https only), permission (supported list, clipboard exception), and duration_seconds (60-600). However, the required 'setting' parameter is never given its possible values, and 'session_id' is left unexplained, so parameter meaning is only partially compensated.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (set), resource (browser site permission), scope (origin), and time bound (60-600 seconds). It also clearly distinguishes this temporary, lease-like operation from the sibling reset_site_permissions tool.

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 concrete eligibility rules: only http/https origins and a specific set of permissions are supported; clipboard is explicitly excluded. It also describes safe vs. lab mode behavior and mentions reset as the recovery path, providing clear context for when this tool applies, though it does not name a direct alternative for permanent permission removal.

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