Delete Browser Cookie

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the scoping context ('with optional URL/domain/path scope'), which clarifies the parameter space. It does not contradict annotations and provides enough behavioral clarity for a simple delete operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then specifies optional parameters. Every word is necessary, and it is not padded with redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with only 4 parameters and an output schema. The description, combined with annotations (destructive, idempotent, openWorld), provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the operation. It could mention the risk of deleting cookies with the same name across scopes, but the openWorldHint annotation partially covers this, so the description remains 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It states that name identifies the cookie and url/domain/path are optional scope, but it does not explain how these scope parameters interact or what happens when omitted. This adds some value but is not comprehensive, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('one named browser cookie'), and distinguishes it from the sibling browser_cookies_clear by specifying 'one named' rather than all cookies. The optional scope parameters are also mentioned, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies a use case for deleting a single cookie, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like browser_cookies_clear or how to choose between url/domain/path. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, so it earns a mid-range score.

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