browser_cookie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it provides none. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., modifying browser state), permissions, return values, or whether actions are reversible. The description 'Manage cookies' reveals nothing about what the tool actually does at runtime.

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 extremely short (two words) but it's under-specified for a tool with four parameters and unknown behavior. Conciseness should not come at the cost of necessary information. The description doesn't earn its place because it communicates almost nothing beyond the tool name.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits critical details like what actions are supported, parameter constraints, return format, and side effects. An agent has virtually no information to correctly invoke this tool.

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% since all parameters have descriptions, but those descriptions are trivial field labels ('Cookie name', 'Cookie value', etc.) that add no semantic depth. The 'action' parameter is described as 'Cookie action', which is circular. The tool description contributes no additional meaning to the parameters, leaving the agent without understanding what values are valid or how parameters interact.

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 states 'Manage cookies', which is a verb plus a resource, but the verb 'manage' is too generic and doesn't specify the actual operations (get, set, delete, etc.). It fails to differentiate from sibling browser tools and gives no indication of what specific cookie-related tasks it accomplishes. The intent is nearly tautological with the tool name, providing little clarity.

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?

No usage context or guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives like browser_storage or other browser tools. An agent gets no help deciding whether to invoke this tool for cookie operations.

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