browser_set_dialog_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that dialogs are auto-answered to never block the agent, explains the meaning of accept, promptText, and suppress, and clarifies the scope (current page) and re-setting requirement. This is transparent and actionable, though it doesn't cover potential side effects like whether the policy resets automatically on reload or applies to iframes.

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 three sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers each parameter and a critical usage caveat (re-set after navigation). Every sentence carries information, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple setter with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the parameters, defaults, and scope. The only minor gap is not specifying the return value (if any) or error conditions, but given the simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds significant context: accept=true confirms (default), promptText sets the return value only when accepted, and suppress neutralizes beforeunload guards. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the interplay between parameters and default behavior.

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 clearly states the tool sets how native JS dialogs are auto-answered, with a specific verb (set) and resource (dialog policy). It explains the three parameters' effects, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_native_dialog which likely handle dialogs interactively, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 a clear scoping note ('Applies to the current page; re-set after navigation if needed'), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over related siblings like browser_dialogs or browser_native_dialog, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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