cookie_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral effect ('Restores session state') beyond merely saying 'import cookies'. However, it does not state whether imported cookies replace existing cookies or merge with them, nor does it mention potential side effects such as invalidation of the current session until a reload.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and input format are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral consequence. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient for basic invocation. However, it leaves open important practical details: whether the operation overwrites or merges cookies, whether a page reload is needed to see the restored session, and what happens if the JSON is malformed or refers to an invalid domain. More context would improve safe usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents that cookies_json is a JSON array of cookies. The description adds a small amount of value by indicating the JSON should come from cookie_export, but it does not compensate or expand beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Import'), a specific resource ('cookies'), and the input format ('JSON'), and explicitly ties the source to 'cookie_export'. It also communicates the intended outcome ('Restores session state'), which distinguishes it from related operations like cookie_export and cookie_import_file.

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 phrase 'from cookie_export' provides a clear context for when this tool should be used: after exporting cookies with the sibling cookie_export tool. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives such as cookie_import_file or storage_state_load, but for a one-parameter tool with a clear pairing, the implied usage is strong.

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