Import Account from Browser

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

With annotations already marking it as open-world and destructive, the description adds meaningful context: it uses the same machinery as --login and requires the browser to be logged in. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the import mechanism and a key prerequisite. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only necessary details. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff.

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 complexity (6 parameters, annotations, output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, mechanism, prerequisite, and an example. It could mention what happens to existing cookies or whether a new account is created, but the output schema and annotations cover the rest.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by providing an example ('a Page whose session is open in your browser profile') that clarifies the identity_type and browser parameters. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 it imports a Facebook identity's cookies directly from a browser, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_account or update_account_cookies by emphasizing the 'from a browser' source and the native cookie import machinery.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use: when the browser is logged into the identity, and it mentions the native machinery equivalent to --login. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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