dialog_handle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses three important traits: it applies across tabs, only the first dialog is handled, and the handler clears itself afterward. This is strong transparency, though it stops short of explaining side effects on the page or how a successful handling is reported.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs the action, scope, and lifecycle behavior into the essential details with no filler. The parenthetical adds critical behavioral rules without bloating the description.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, and with 0% parameter coverage the description should make the two parameters and their semantics clear, which it does not. It describes the handler lifecycle well but leaves prompt_text undefined and says nothing about return values or invocation results, so an agent cannot fully predict the call.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain action and prompt_text but does not mention either. The action enum and defaults are visible in the schema, but the meaning of prompt_text and when it applies (e.g., only when accepting a prompt) is left completely unspecified.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('handler for the next alert/confirm/prompt') and adds global scope ('ANY open tab'), which clearly differentiates this one-shot manual handler concept from a generic auto-handler sibling. It tells an agent exactly what the tool does.

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 clear context: this is for the next dialog on any open tab, so an agent knows when to call it before an action that might trigger a dialog. It does not explicitly name alternatives like dialog_auto_handle or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but there are no misleading exclusions.

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