set_dialog_behavior

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: beforeunload is always dismissed regardless of the setting. It also implies that the setting persists for subsequent dialogs. However, it doesn't disclose whether this setting is session-wide, per-page, or resets after navigation, nor does it mention any side effects or limitations. The description adds some value but leaves important behavioral questions unanswered.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key behavioral exception. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an enum, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the core purpose, the parameter values, and a key behavioral exception. However, it lacks context about the scope of the setting (session, page, navigation), whether it affects all tabs or just the current one, and how it interacts with the 'dialogs' sibling tool. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but the missing scope information could lead to incorrect usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description does explain the two enum values ('accept' and 'dismiss') and their meaning, which adds value beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't explain the exact effect of each choice in detail (e.g., what happens to the dialog, whether a callback is triggered), and the schema already provides the enum values. The description adds some semantic meaning but not comprehensive parameter documentation.

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's purpose: setting how JS dialogs are auto-handled, with 'accept' or 'dismiss' options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dialogs' (which likely inspects dialogs) by focusing on the auto-handling behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating from the 'dialogs' tool.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to control JS dialog auto-handling. It mentions the default behavior ('accept') and a special case (beforeunload is always dismissed), which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'dialogs' for inspecting dialogs, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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