auth_import_storage_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only states that data is imported into a profile. It does not disclose whether the import overwrites/merges existing profile state, whether the profile must already exist, or what side effects occur on the filesystem.

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 a single well-formed sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds a useful concrete example. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The tool is simple, but no annotations or output schema exist, and the description omits critical operational details like whether existing cookies/localStorage are replaced or merged. It also does not describe expected outcomes or prerequisites, leaving an agent uncertain about side effects.

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% and no enum/default values exist, so the description must explain both parameters explicitly. It clearly maps `name` to the profile, but `path` is only implied as the source JSON; the description never explicitly states that `path` is a filesystem path to the storage-state JSON.

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 names a specific verb ('Import'), a specific resource ('Playwright storage-state JSON'), and a clear target ('profile name'). It also clarifies the format as 'cookies + localStorage', which distinguishes it from auth_browser_login and auth_oauth_login without needing to inspect schemas.

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 'e.g. from a Playwright test setup's storageState output' gives a concrete use case, so an agent can infer when this is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling auth tools or mention any exclusions.

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