linda_set_cookie

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool bypasses automatic auth flows and suggests a follow-up action, but it does not mention side effects, error states, or security implications. Some transparency is present, but it is not comprehensive.

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 three short sentences without any wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and format, making it easy to scan quickly. Every sentence adds value.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, format, and a follow-up step (linda_auth_status). It is largely complete for a simple cookie-setting tool, though it could mention error handling or return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the cookie string format comes from browser DevTools, providing slight extra value beyond the schema's own description.

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 the tool sets session cookies directly and bypasses automatic auth flows. It uses a specific verb ('sets') and resource ('session cookies'), and the sibling tools (e.g., linda_auth_status, linda_search) have distinct purposes, so it differentiates well.

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 when to use it (to bypass automatic auth) and tells to call linda_auth_status afterward. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context and sibling list give enough guidance for typical use.

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