add_cookie_manager

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral trait: adding the manager makes samplers in scope share cookies automatically. However, it does not mention how policy or clearEachIteration affect behavior, whether existing cookies are cleared, or any reversibility concerns. The core side effect is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no wasted words. Every clause adds either placement or behavioral 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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It covers the parent relationship and cookie-sharing effect, but fails to describe required planId, the policy options, clearEachIteration behavior, or what a successful call returns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly explains parentId via 'given parent'; planId, name, policy, and clearEachIteration receive no explanation in either the schema or the description. This is a significant gap, though the parent reference earns some credit.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('HTTP Cookie Manager'), and the placement context ('under the given parent'). It also gives the operational outcome ('samplers in scope share cookies automatically'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling add_* tools.

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 gives concrete placement guidance ('usually a Thread Group') and explains the functional consequence that makes the tool useful. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_header_manager or add_http_request_defaults, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when cookie management is needed.

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