cookies

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'manage' covers destructive actions like delete/clear. However, the description does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as the effect of dryRun parameter or that preview mode exists. The schema provides some detail, but the description adds minimal extra transparency beyond 'manage'.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('manage browser cookies') and lists actions, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage scenarios. However, the schema is comprehensive, partially compensating. The description could provide more context on how actions interact or ordering.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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: managing browser cookies by performing actions like get, set, delete, clear. The verb 'manage' combined with the explicit list of actions makes it specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'storage' or 'network'.

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 cookie management but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for simple cookie operations vs. other storage methods). No guidance on 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.