save_auth_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states it saves authentication cookies, but does not disclose whether this overwrites existing tokens, persists across sessions, or has any security implications. With zero annotation support, this is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing 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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and the fallback context. It is appropriately concise, though it could have been slightly more structured with additional behavioral details without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of these saved cookies, any prerequisites, or what happens after saving. The fallback note gives some context, but the tool lacks essential behavioral and lifecycle information for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, each with a clear description (e.g., cookies as a header string, CSRF token, session ID). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Manually save authentication cookies'. It also identifies it as a fallback method, which distinguishes it from alternative auth approaches. However, it does not explicitly reference the sibling tool refresh_auth, though the manual/fallback framing differentiates it.

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 phrase 'fallback method — prefer using CLI auth' provides explicit usage guidance, telling the agent to consider this tool only when normal CLI authentication is not preferred. This is clear context, though it does not rule out other alternatives or mention sibling tools.

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