pilot_set_useragent

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: recreates browser context, preserves cookies and page state, but may interrupt in-progress requests. It also mentions error warnings about state preservation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by use cases, notes, and parameter details. It is reasonably concise, though the structure could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description provides return value ('Confirmation with the new User-Agent string') and error conditions (context recreation warnings). It covers all essential aspects for a single-parameter tool.

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% and description provides an example User-Agent string ('Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15'), adding practical context beyond the basic schema type description.

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 'Set a custom browser User-Agent string' and provides specific use cases (simulate browser/device, bypass bot detection, test mobile user agents). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like pilot_set_header by focusing on the User-Agent header.

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 lists applicable scenarios (simulate browser/device, bypass bot detection, test mobile) and includes a caveat about context recreation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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