manage_cookies

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing beyond the action names: no mention that set/delete/delete_all mutate browser state, that delete_all may clear cookies across domains, that cookies are scoped to the current page/URL, or what happens on error. For a tool with five distinct behaviors, this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the resource and the complete operation set are conveyed in ten words. Every word earns its place and nothing should be cut.

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?

This is a multi-action tool (5 behaviors, 7 parameters) with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides only the action list. Per-action parameter contracts, return behavior, and lifecycle preconditions are all missing, so an agent cannot reliably determine what to pass for each action or what to expect back.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the action vocabulary but does not clarify the conditional per-action parameter requirements — for example, that 'set' effectively needs name, value, and domain while 'delete_all' needs no extra parameters. Since the schema also fails to encode these conditionals, the description neither gains a bonus nor drops below baseline.

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 names the resource ('browser cookies') and enumerates five concrete operations (get_all, get, set, delete, delete_all), which clearly scopes what the tool does. It also distinguishes from the sibling browser-automation tools, none of which handle cookies. The verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic, but the explicit action list compensates.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives or under what conditions. It omits prerequisites such as an active browser session or an already-navigated page, and gives no exclusions. The only usage signal is the action enum, leaving the agent to infer timing and context entirely.

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