Cookies/Set Cookies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the request is a GET with state persisted server-side, and the response body is a JSON listing of all cookies — important since there is no output schema. It stops short of saying whether existing cookies are overwritten or how long the saved cookies live.

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?

Front-loaded with what the endpoint does, then the response behavior, then an example substitution rule. The trailing parenthetical Postman request line is slightly redundant with the described URL but does supply the concrete endpoint, so it roughly earns its place.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to sufficient: it explains input form, persistence, and return shape. The remaining gaps — overwrite semantics for already-set cookies and session/scope lifetime — are real but secondary to correct invocation.

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 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions, so the schema does the work. The description's note that '%foo1=bar1&foo2=bar2' is an example to be replaced with arbitrary key-value pairs adds a little meaning about the defaults, but the schema only exposes two fixed params, so the guidance is partly aspirational. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action and resource: it accepts cookies as URL query parameters on a GET, saves them, and returns all cookies as JSON. The verb+resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from cookies_get_cookies and cookies_delete_cookies, though those siblings are never named as contrasts.

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?

Usage is only implied: it notes cookies 'can be subsequently retrieved or deleted,' which sketches the workflow without telling the agent when to pick this tool over the get/delete siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternative routing are given.

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