chrome_set_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful traits: plaintext is never logged or echoed, and success returns only UTF-8 byte length plus SHA-256. It does not state failure modes, permission requirements, or whether the write is reversible.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint, with no filler. Slightly compressed but each sentence carries information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the snapshot freshness requirement, control-type exclusions, and the exact return shape (byte length + SHA-256), which is what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Minor gaps remain around error behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents snapshot_id, node_id, and value. The description reinforces the security property of the value parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set one exact non-sensitive text control') and scopes the source of the node to a preceding chrome_read snapshot, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like type_text or ax_set_value.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (value must come from the immediately preceding chrome_read snapshot) and the exclusions (password, payment, OTP, file, hidden, sensitive controls unavailable). It does not name a fallback alternative such as ax_set_value or type_text, so routing knowledge is incomplete.

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