glass_set_value

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

The description goes well beyond annotations (none provided), detailing instant vs typed paths, read-back confirmation up to three reads, specific error conditions, and the warning not to rewrite after an unconfirmed write. This gives the agent critical behavioral expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior, failure modes, operational warning, and optional return behavior. It is front-loaded and organized.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's mechanism, error cases, retry guidance, and return options. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the id source and elaborating the return parameter's 'snapshot' and 'settle' behaviors beyond the schema descriptions, which justifies a 4.

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 opening 'Set an editable element's value' states a clear verb and resource, and references picking the element's #id from glass_a11y_snapshot. This differentiates it from siblings like glass_type or glass_click.

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 clearly indicates this is for setting editable element values using a snapshot id, and contrasts direct writes with typed fallback. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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