auth_cookie_tamper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes side effects ('Sends GET requests with manipulated cookies'), return format, and the tool's testing nature, though it could add more on error handling or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and side effects in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured.

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 (security testing with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining purpose, returns, and side effects. However, it could improve by detailing prerequisites or error scenarios for full completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (url and cookies). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('Test cookie manipulation for privilege escalation') and resources ('cookie values'), and distinguishes it from siblings like auth_bruteforce or auth_csrf_extract by focusing on cookie tampering rather than other authentication attacks.

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 usage for testing privilege escalation via cookie manipulation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like auth_bruteforce or idor_test. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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