cookies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return types for each action and notes that 'delete' with no filter clears all cookies—a destructive behavior. However, it does not cover potential side effects (e.g., impact on browser state) or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 and well-structured: a one-line title, a line about replacement, clearly labeled Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important info (action options) 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?

Given 4 parameters and multiple actions, the description covers the primary use cases and return values. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return format. However, it lacks details on error handling, cookie dict format for set, and constraints (e.g., domain format).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'action' with its three values and effects, 'domain' for filtering, 'cookies_list' for set, and 'name' for delete. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though the structure of 'cookies_list' items is only vaguely described as 'cookie dicts'.

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 it is for 'Cookie management' and explicitly lists three actions (get, set, delete) with distinct behaviors. It also notes that it replaces older tools (get_cookies, set_cookies, delete_cookies), establishing a clear scope distinct from sibling browser automation 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 explains when to use each action via the 'action' parameter and provides context for domain and name filters. It mentions replacing older tools but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_storage' or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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