clear_user_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that CDP setUserAgentOverride lacks a clear command and that sending an empty string is fingerprintable. It explains the workaround of evaluating navigator.userAgent, which adds valuable context beyond a simple 'clear'.

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 and then provides necessary technical details. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise but is well-structured.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is fully complete. It explains the problem, the reason for the workaround, and the solution. No additional information is needed for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, and the description does not need to add anything because there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description implicitly confirms no input is needed.

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 removes the override and restores the real User-Agent. It is specific about the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_user_agent.

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 explains the technical need for the workaround but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is implied from the explanation.

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