Save Auth Context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions saving storage state ('cookies etc.') but does not disclose whether existing named contexts are overwritten, what permissions are required, whether session storage includes all browser storage types, or any side effects. As a write operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Save') and resource ('current session storage state'). Every word contributes to the meaning without unnecessary detail or repetition. This is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides high-level purpose and leaves the meanings of domain and environment undefined. It also omits behavior around overwriting or naming collisions. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly in all cases.

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. It only implies the meaning of sessionId (current session) and name (named context), but gives no explanation for domain or environment. These parameters remain ambiguous, and the description does not mention the domain scope or when environment should be specified.

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 saves the current session's storage state (cookies etc.) as a named auth context for reuse. It uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('session storage state'), and the phrase 'for reuse' distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_auth_context, list_auth_contexts, and delete_auth_context.

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: after establishing a session you want to persist for later reuse. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with load_auth_context and the 'for reuse' phrase provide clear context. No explicit 'use instead' guidance, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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