reset_cookies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral outcome ('reset the cookie count back to zero') and context ('for testing purposes'), but does not mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. This is adequate but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('reset the cookie count back to zero') and adds necessary context ('for testing purposes') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a reset operation. It explains what the tool does and its testing context, but could benefit from mentioning the return value or confirmation of reset, though not strictly required without 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters or conditions apply. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 specific action ('reset') and resource ('cookie count'), specifying the outcome ('back to zero') and context ('for testing purposes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_cookies_to_jar' or 'check_cookies' by focusing on resetting rather than modifying or querying.

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 explicitly states 'for testing purposes,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as 'give_cookie' for adding cookies instead of resetting.

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