cookies

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

Despite no annotations, the description details the behavioral effects of each action, including required parameters (cookies_list for set), filtering behavior for get and delete, and the implication that delete can clear all. It also states return types for each action.

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 concise, using a clear Args/Returns structure. Every line adds value, with no redundant or vague statements. It packs significant detail into a compact format.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, 4 parameters, no annotations or schema descriptions), the description provides complete coverage: action semantics, parameter roles, filtering logic, and return values. It also references the version and legacy tools.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and allowed values (e.g., action values 'get', 'set', 'delete'; cookies_list structure with name, value, domain, etc.). This adds critical meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as cookie management with three sub-actions (get, set, delete), and explicitly states it replaces the older separate tools. This distinguishes it from any potential sibling cookie 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each action (get, set, delete) and notes that delete with no filter clears all cookies. However, it does not discuss when to avoid this tool in favor of sibling tools like get_storage, though the replacement statement implies preference.

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