cx_import_cookies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'import' and describes the input, but does not state whether importing cookies overwrites the current session, whether cookies are validated, or what side effects occur. This is a meaningful gap for a session-affecting tool.

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 compact and well-structured: action and source first, then parameter format, then use cases. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant text.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential input format and use cases. The main missing context is the session-side-effect behavior, but basic invocation is adequately covered.

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?

The schema only defines a top-level 'cookies' array of arbitrary objects with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by specifying the expected item shape: [{name,value,domain?,path?}], and explains how to obtain the cookies. It does not define value types or required fields inside each item, but it provides enough to construct a valid call.

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: importing 学习通 (Chaoxing) cookies from a browser, and specifies the exact input format. No sibling tool handles cookie import, so it is easily distinguished from cx_login and other session tools.

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 explicitly gives applicable scenarios: when the platform forces secondary verification or when password login is restricted by risk control. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the stated conditions are sufficient to guide tool selection.

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