browser_set_dialog_behavior

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior ('accept'), the alternative ('dismiss'), and an important edge case ('beforeunload is always dismissed'), providing useful behavioral context beyond a simple statement of functionality.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes all necessary details without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, the parameter values, the default, and a critical special case, leaving no significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 lists an enum with no defaults or explanations. The description compensates by explaining that 'accept' is the default and 'dismiss' is the alternative, and clarifies the beforeunload behavior, adding meaning beyond 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Set' and identifies the resource 'JS dialogs' and the two behaviors ('accept' or 'dismiss'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like browser_dialogs (which likely reads dialogs) by focusing on auto-handling configuration.

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 provides clear context that this tool configures auto-handling of JS dialogs, implying usage when such behavior needs to be controlled. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the explicit guidance of the highest tier.

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