manage_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: clear deletes all cookies, save may overwrite files, filename can access the server filesystem, cookies may contain credentials, and loading does not guarantee restored logins. These are exactly the side effects and limitations an agent needs.

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 organized into Args, Returns, Security, and Notes, with the main purpose and use cases front-loaded. Every section earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's breadth and the absence of annotations.

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 multi-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, per-action return values, filesystem and security caveats, and behavioral limitations. An agent can infer exactly what to expect from each action and what precautions to take.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully documents each action value, the meaning of filename, the default, and that filename is ignored for get_all and clear. It more than compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a clear resource (browser cookies) and spells out four concrete operations: inspect, clear, save, and restore. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling manage_storage tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 concrete use cases: inspecting session state, preserving logins, restoring sessions, and resetting website state during testing. It does not say when to avoid this tool or name alternatives such as manage_storage for web storage, so it lacks exclusions.

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