manage_cookies

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The SECURITY note about filesystem exposure and potential overwrite via 'save' is valuable and discloses important side effects. However, it doesn't describe other behaviors like whether 'clear' removes all cookies, what 'load' does to existing cookies, or what the response looks like.

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 compact and well-organized: a clear purpose line, an Args section, and a SECURITY warning. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the key points easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, all actions, parameters, and important security considerations. Missing return-value details and deeper behavioral specifics are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 explain parameters, and it does. It defines the 'action' values and clarifies that 'filename' is used for save/load. This is sufficient for an agent to construct calls correctly, though it doesn't mention defaults or the exact file format.

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 and resource ('Get, clear, save, or load browser cookies'), which is easily distinguishable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_storage, but the resource is named and the action set makes the scope clear.

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 lists possible actions but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios favoring manage_cookies vs manage_storage or when to use get_all versus clear. Usage is implied by the action names rather than explicitly stated.

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