delete_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it reveals the operation targets the persistent 'real browser profile' rather than ephemeral state, and discloses the mechanism — CDP Network.deleteCookies with a document.cookie expiration fallback. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about side effects and reliability that the schema cannot.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: purpose, scope behavior, and mechanism/fallback. The core action is front-loaded and there is zero filler.

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 output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and core delete behavior plus scope targeting are covered. But for a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage, leaving tab_id, timeout, and session_id unexplained is a noticeable gap.

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 adds real meaning for the scope parameters (url/domain/path and the current-page default), but tab_id, timeout, and session_id are never mentioned, leaving their semantics entirely undocumented. This is only partial compensation for a 7-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Delete a cookie by name from the real browser profile' — and adds scope semantics (defaults to current page, or pass domain/path/url). This inherently distinguishes it from cookie siblings like get_cookies and set_cookies, whose actions are clearly different.

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 scoping sentence gives actionable context ('pass domain/path/url to target another scope'), so an agent understands how to direct the deletion. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion — nothing names alternatives or warns against using this when the document.cookie fallback would be ineffective, such as with httpOnly cookies.

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