browser_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that clear wipes all cookies for a url/domain (a destructive effect), but says nothing about whether set overwrites existing cookies, whether operations persist across sessions, permission/auth needs, or what get returns.

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 front-loaded summary followed by a tight per-operation bullet list is easy to scan and wastes no words. Slightly more explanation of the two undocumented parameters would have earned a 5.

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 7-parameter, mutation-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete: it omits path/secure semantics, error behavior, and any return-value expectations for get.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents op, url, name, value, and domain, and states the required combinations per operation. But it leaves path and secure entirely unexplained (including secure's default of false), so two of seven parameters remain undocumented.

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 names the resource (cookies) and enumerates the four supported operations, so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings like browser_storage or browser_clear_browsing_data, but the operation set is specific enough to be 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?

Per-operation requirements (set needs url+name+value, remove needs url+name, get uses url/domain/name to filter) give implied usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to use this over browser_storage or browser_clear_browsing_data, and no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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