delete_cookies

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true), but the description adds valuable detail about the mechanism: 'Uses CDP Network.deleteCookies, falling back to expiring it via document.cookie.' It also clarifies it operates on the 'real browser profile,' implying a persistent effect. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then adds the technical fallback. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. It is highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it deletes, how it targets scope, and the underlying mechanism. It omits details on timeout, tab_id, and session_id, but those are likely generic across similar tools. Given the presence of an output schema, the return value is not explained but not critical. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly in most 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the core parameter 'name' and the scope parameters (url, domain, path) in context. However, it does not mention timeout, tab_id, or session_id, which remain undocumented in both schema and description. Partial coverage but not complete.

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 action ('Delete a cookie by name') and the resource ('from the real browser profile'), which is specific and actionable. It also mentions scope options (current page or domain/path/url), adding clarity without confusion. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_cookies or get_cookies, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 when to use it and how to adjust scope: 'Scope defaults to the current page (url), or pass domain/path/url to target another scope.' This gives clear conditions for parameter selection. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scoping guidance is sufficient for most use cases.

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