set_csp_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that setting 'enabled=false' enables bypass for inline injections, which is significant. However, it does not discuss reversibility, persistence, or security implications beyond that. The behavioral insight is useful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two tight sentences. Every word adds value: the first states the core action, the second provides technical context and behavioral effect. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficient for an AI agent 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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the main behavior but leaves gaps. It explains the effect of 'enabled' and the per-context scope, but does not describe the 'contextId' parameter explicitly, fail conditions, or return behavior. It is moderately complete but missing details for full agent understanding.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It clarifies the 'enabled' parameter as a boolean controlling CSP enforcement, but does not explicitly describe the 'contextId' parameter (only implying it via 'per-context scope'). This leaves the 'contextId' parameter's role and syntax unclear, which is insufficient for full understanding.

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 action ('Enable or disable CSP enforcement') and identifies the resource ('browsing context'). It provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It also references the underlying BiDi command, adding precision. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the unique functionality of CSP enforcement is distinct enough.

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 explains the per-context scope and the effect of 'enabled=false', giving some context for usage. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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