cookie_add_preferences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add cookie preference management' with no mention of side effects, file modifications, permissions, or whether it modifies the project directory. The agent cannot anticipate the tool's impact.

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 extremely brief but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no front-loaded key information or structure, and the single phrase carries no useful detail beyond the tool name.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters (one undocumented), the description is vastly incomplete. It doesn't describe what inputs are needed, what operation is performed on the directory, what the api_key is for, or what success/error outcomes look like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool.

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 50% — 'directory' is described as 'Project directory', but 'api_key' has no schema description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, failing to compensate for the api_key gap. It doesn't explain how api_key is used or how the directory relates to the cookie preference operation.

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 'Add cookie preference management' essentially restates the tool name 'cookie_add_preferences' without adding specificity. It gives no indication of what 'preference management' entails, what files are affected, or how it differs from siblings like cookie_generate_banner or cookie_generate_policy.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the right tool for the task.

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