cloak_set_locale

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It usefully goes beyond a generic 'set locale' by naming the two surfaces affected (the JS navigator property and the HTTP Accept-Language header), which tells the agent the change is observable both in-page and on the wire. However, it says nothing about persistence, reversibility, whether already-loaded pages are affected, or any permission requirements.

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 sentence with the verb and affected surfaces front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 setter with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: it omits the input format, the lifetime/scope of the override, and any interaction with already-rendered content. The core purpose is conveyed, but not enough for confident invocation.

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 0% for the single 'locale' parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never states the expected format (e.g., BCP-47 like 'en-US'), whether it accepts language-only tags, or any example value, leaving the agent to guess at valid input.

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 states a specific verb ('Override') and the exact resources affected ('navigator.language and Accept-Language'), so an agent knows precisely what the tool changes. It does not name or contrast with siblings like cloak_set_timezone or cloak_set_geolocation, but the resource is distinct enough to be told apart.

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?

'for the active context' implies the scope of application but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Usage is inferable from the verb/resource rather than stated, which is only minimally adequate.

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