Import cookies into a profile

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that existing cookies with the same domain/path/name are replaced, which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions the dependency on cloud sync and paid plan. This adds valuable context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each providing essential information: the core action, the replacement behavior, and the prerequisites. No filler or repetition. The information is front-loaded with the primary purpose first.

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 (3 parameters, nested cookie structure) and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: behavior, prerequisites, and replacement semantics. However, it omits mention of the optional browserProfilePassword and what the API returns. Still, it is largely complete for making an informed call.

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 description does not mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The schema itself includes some nested descriptions for cookie fields, but the crucial browserProfilePassword parameter and the overall cookie array requirements are left unexplained. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('cookies into a profile'), and clarifies the mechanism ('via the remote sync API — no desktop app required'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_cookies_local and aligns with the title.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: when you need to import cookies remotely via sync API without a desktop app. It also states prerequisites ('profile must have cloud sync enabled', 'paid-plan feature') that help the agent choose the right tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like import_cookies_local.

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