respond_to_dialog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the authorization requirement, the exact set of failure modes (uncaptured, stale, closed, replaced, already-handled, disconnected, mismatched text fails without acting), and the no-op behavior on text mismatch. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a mutating action.

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 security requirement is front-loaded ahead of the mechanical rules, which is the right ordering for a mutating tool. Every sentence carries operative content, though the security preamble is lengthy and could be tightened without losing constraints.

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 4-parameter, mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, authorization, and failure modes thoroughly. The one gap is what a successful response returns or what post-dialog state results, which an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 50%, with prompt_text and browser_token documented in the schema but action and dialog_id not fully. The description compensates well by stating that prompt_text must be supplied explicitly for prompt+accept, that an empty string is an intentional empty submission, and that dialog_id must be one released by a successful capture. It adds real semantics beyond the enum and minimum constraints.

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 establishes a specific verb and resource (responding to a captured browser dialog) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling task of capturing via get_captured_dialog. It never states a plain one-line summary of the operation, choosing instead to lead with the security precondition, so the purpose is inferable rather than stated outright.

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?

Gives an explicit ordered precondition (first call get_captured_dialog and examine URL, type and message), an explicit prohibition (never accept merely to unblock automation or because the page asks), and the specific condition selecting prompt_text per action and dialog type. Alternatives and exclusions are fully enumerated.

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