Set Browser Permission

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful context about the tool's scoping ('one bounded origin' and 'current Chromium context'), but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as side effects, persistence, or authorization requirements. The annotations and description are consistent with no contradiction.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's simple nature (3 parameters, 2 enums, and existing output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the allowed setting values, and scope. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and side-effect disclosure, but the annotations and schema fill those gaps, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has low description coverage (33%) with only the 'origin' parameter described. The tool description helps by explicitly stating the allowed setting values ('granted, denied, or prompt') and clarifying the origin scope ('one bounded origin'), but it does not enumerate the permission options or add syntax/format details beyond what the schema enums provide. It partially compensates for the schema gaps but leaves some semantic burden on the agent.

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 action: 'Set one permission to granted, denied, or prompt for one bounded origin in the current Chromium context.' This is a specific verb (Set) with a specific resource (permission) and scope (one bounded origin), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_permission_get and browser_permissions_reset which perform different operations.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly explain when to use it versus alternatives such as browser_permission_get or browser_permissions_reset. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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