bowire.cookies.clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key non-obvious trait: the operation is two-phase, returning { pending, confirmationToken, plan } on the first call. That is exactly the kind of state-machine behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of saying the clear is irreversible or whether a pending plan expires.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the two-step contract second. The '#681' issue reference is mild noise but does not obscure the payload.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the first-call return shape. For a destructive, unannotated tool the main gaps are permission/auth prerequisites and the consequences of clearing (irreversibility, effect on live sessions), but the critical calling mechanics are present.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning the per-parameter schema text does not: it explains how confirm and confirmationToken interact across calls and what the first invocation returns, which is more than the isolated field descriptions convey.

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 verb+resource ('Clear a cookie jar') and immediately scopes it to either a whole environment jar or a single domain. An agent can tell what the tool does, though it never names the complementary sibling bowire.cookies.list for the non-destructive read case.

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?

Gives real usage context for the confirmation flow ('two-step by default... re-invoke with confirm=true or pass the token back'), which tells the agent how to complete the call. It does not say when to prefer this over cookies.list or when clearing is appropriate, so guidance is implied rather than comparative.

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