import_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that invalid entries are silently skipped (graceful degradation) and that existing cookies with the same (name, domain, path) triple are overwritten. This sufficiently communicates key behavioral traits for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds behavioral notes. No redundant information, efficiently front-loaded with the core operation.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the operation and edge cases (partial restore, overwrite). Missing error handling details (e.g., file not found) but overall adequate.

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 file_path is described as the path to a JSON file from export_cookies, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'string' type. While schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose. Additional format or requirement details would improve it.

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 'Load cookies from a JSON file produced by export_cookies', specifying the verb (load) and resource (cookies from a file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_cookie (individual cookie) and clear_all_cookies.

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 implies usage when a JSON cookie file from export_cookies is available and mentions partial restore behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., set_cookie for individual cookies) or provide exclusion criteria.

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