camofox_import_cookies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It states the tool modifies a user session by importing cookies but does not disclose whether existing cookies are replaced, if validation occurs, or any size/format limitations. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.

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 concise at two sentences with a clear primary purpose and a usage example. The first sentence essentially restates the tool name, which is slightly redundant, but overall it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers the main action and a key prerequisite, but lacks information about return values or side effects (e.g., whether the operation returns success/failure). For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage (userId has a brief description, cookie properties have none), the description adds no additional meaning. It only repeats that cookies are imported but does not clarify the structure or constraints (e.g., required domain format). The agent must rely on schema field names only.

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 that the tool imports cookies into a user session, provides a concrete use case (skipping interactive login on LinkedIn), and the action is distinct from all sibling tools which are about browser automation (navigation, clicks, screenshots, etc.) without cookie management.

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 indicates the tool is for authenticated browsing (e.g., to skip login) and mentions a production prerequisite (BearerAuth). However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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