save_cookies

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 side effects. It states that cookies are written to a file, but does not mention whether the file is overwritten, where the file is saved, or what format is used. This is a persistence operation with potentially destructive overwrite behavior that is not disclosed.

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 with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices behavioral detail that would be valuable.

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 has one optional parameter, no annotations, and only a minimal description. It leaves important details unaddressed: file path, overwrite behavior, and whether the file is stored locally or remotely. Becase there are no annotations and the output schema does not cover side effects, the description is not enough for safe invocation.

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 schema has one parameter 'name' with no description and a default of 'cookies.txt'. The phrase 'to a file' hints that 'name' refers to the file name, but this is not explicitly stated. With 0% schema coverage, the description only minimally compensates for the parameter's ambiguity.

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 'Save', identifies the resource 'current cookies', and specifies the target 'to a file'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_cookies or load_cookies, which have different purposes.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that load_cookies restores saved cookies or that get_all_cookies retrieves cookies without file persistence, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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