set_cookies

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without covering side effects such as whether existing cookies are overwritten, whether the session persists, or any prerequisites or limitations. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. There is no redundant information or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits details about the optional parameters, the expected behavior after setting cookies, and the relationship to sibling tools like 'save_session_cookies'. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 marginal value by highlighting li_at as the primary cookie and connecting it to 'purchased accounts', but it does not explain how the optional 'cookies' array or 'jsessionid' relate to the core functionality beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Set', the resource 'LinkedIn authentication cookies (li_at)', and the target 'for a profile'. It also specifies 'for purchased accounts', which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'login' or 'save_session_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 phrase 'Use this for purchased accounts' provides a clear context for when this tool should be invoked. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'do not use for normal logins'), so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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