save_auth_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool saves authentication tokens and auto-extracts certain values, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a one-time setup operation, if tokens persist across sessions, what permissions are required, or potential side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. There's minimal redundancy, and the structure helps understanding despite moderate length.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameters but leaves gaps in behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should better address when and why to use this tool, authentication implications, and operational constraints. For a security-sensitive tool with complex parameters, this is minimally 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description provides substantial value by explaining parameter purposes and relationships. It clarifies that 'cookies' is the primary required parameter from Chrome DevTools, marks csrf_token and session_id as deprecated with auto-extraction sources, and explains how request_body and request_url contain the auto-extracted tokens. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Save NotebookLM cookies' with the specific action 'save' and resource 'cookies'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication token management rather than content creation or notebook operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any direct authentication-related siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that CSRF and session ID are auto-extracted, but doesn't explain when manual parameters might still be needed or what scenarios require this tool. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationship to other authentication flows.

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