Imports cookies into the specified profile.

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

The description states 'Cookies will overwrite existing cookies in the profile,' which is a non-additive, data-replacing update, yet the annotation declares destructiveHint=false (defined as additive-only updates). This directly contradicts the annotation, so per the rubric it scores 1 and is flagged.

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 short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the overwrite warning is placed where it matters. The middle sentence re-states the format already given in sentence one, which is minor redundancy.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, format, and the overwrite side effect. It omits error/permission behavior and what is returned, and the misleading 'cookies parameter' naming leaves an agent to reconcile it against the 'body' property.

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 schema already documents profileId, body, and workspaceId, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a JSON-validity requirement but refers to a 'cookies parameter' that does not exist in the schema (the actual parameter is 'body'), which is slightly confusing rather than clarifying.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('importing cookies into an existing profile in JSON format'), which is clear enough to separate it from export_cookies and copy_cookies. It does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (import cookies into an existing profile) and it adds one relevant caution — existing cookies will be overwritten — but there is no explicit 'use this instead of copy_cookies/export_cookies when...' guidance or stated prerequisites (e.g., profile must exist/be unlocked).

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