linkedin_auth_import_cookies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds supported formats and use case, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing auth state, whether the import takes effect immediately for subsequent tool calls, or how invalid cookies are handled. This is a notable gap for an auth-import tool, but it does not contradict any annotation.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second lists the supported formats, the third gives the usage context. No filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the core aspects: what it does, what inputs it accepts, and when to use it. It omits details about return values or session side effects, but the schema's `persist` description and the annotations fill in some gaps. Slightly more behavioral depth would make it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the `cookies` parameter by enumerating five concrete formats (Cookie-Editor JSON, EditThisCookie JSON, Playwright storageState, Netscape cookies.txt, raw header string), which significantly reduces ambiguity. It adds nothing for `persist`, but that parameter is already well-described in the schema.

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 "Import LinkedIn cookies supplied directly as text," which names the specific action (import), the resource (LinkedIn cookies), and the method (direct text). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like linkedin_auth_export_cookies, linkedin_auth_reload, and linkedin_auth_status.

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 final sentence explicitly states "Use this when the user pastes cookies into the conversation rather than saving a file," providing a concrete trigger condition and implicitly contrasting with file-based alternatives. This gives the agent a clear decision rule with no ambiguity.

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