Set tracking protection and cookie behaviour

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

The destructive/read-write nature is already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds useful context that this writes the real Privacy-panel prefs and appears in about:preferences immediately, indicating persistence. It stops short of stating scope (all windows/profiles/containers), whether a restart is needed, or that setting mode back to 'off' is how you revert.

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 tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action, then the enumerated levels, then the practical consequence. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the ordering matches how an agent would reason about the call.

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 tool with a fully described enum and annotations carrying the destructive profile, this covers what the agent needs. The remaining gap is scope and reversibility of the pref change, which is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 the enum is listed there, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by actually explaining what each of 'off', 'standard', and 'strict' blocks, including the cookie-behaviour side effect of 'strict'. This is meaning the schema's bare 'Tracking protection level' label does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Switch the tracking-protection level') and defines the three levels, so the agent knows exactly what is being changed. It doesn't directly differentiate itself from the nearby browser_set_pref, though the note about the Privacy panel prefs hints at overlap without resolving it.

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 per-mode explanations (off / private-only / also normal windows plus cookie tightening) implicitly tell an agent which mode to pick for a given privacy posture. However, there is no statement of when to use this tool versus browser_set_pref or other privacy-related siblings, and no preconditions are given.

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