delete_cookie

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it flags the operation as irreversible ('cannot be undone'), names concrete side effects (logging the user out, resetting consent banners and preferences), and explains the deferred timing of the effect with a required follow-up action.

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?

Three tight sentences ordered by importance: what it does, what gets destroyed, then how to make the change take effect. No padding, and the destructive warning is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: the effect, its irreversibility, the collateral consequences, and the post-call action required to observe the result.

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% and the single parameter's description already documents the omit-to-delete-all semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the omitted-name behavior but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete_cookie) and immediately distinguishes two modes: one cookie by name, or all cookies for the current page when name is omitted. This clearly separates it from siblings like add_cookie and get_cookies without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear operational context: omit the name to clear everything, and refresh (history) or navigate afterwards because the page only notices on its next request. It does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives like get_cookies or add_cookie, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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