youtube_cookie_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: it persists credentials to a configured cookie path (a disk write) and it performs a login/playlist verification pass. However, it omits overwrite semantics, what happens if verification fails, and any security/permission notes, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the verification behavior. It is terse but not padded, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the verification side effect, which is reasonably complete. It still leaves the agent unsure about the outcome reporting on success/failure and the interaction with the other youtube_cookie_* tool, so it falls short of fully sufficient.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Pasted YouTube cookies' hints that the string is raw browser-copied cookie data rather than a file path or token, which adds some value, but it does not specify the expected format (Netscape, header string, JSON) or whether the value is truncated/validated.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Store pasted YouTube cookies') plus a secondary effect ('verify login + playlist access'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It is implicitly distinguishable from the read-only sibling youtube_cookie_status, but it never names that sibling or otherwise explicitly contrast with it.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance. The phrase 'pasted cookies' weakly implies this is used after a user supplies raw cookie data, but the description never states prerequisites (e.g. must be run before other YouTube tools work) nor points to youtube_cookie_status as the way to check state instead.

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