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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is the single most important behavioral fact for an agent that might otherwise assume a delete happens. It also describes what the response contains (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), adding value beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about response length limits or failure modes.

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 key fact (it only returns instructions) is stated early, which is good, but the phrasing is padded with marketing-style audience framing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a cryptic trailing line 'Brandfolder's official API: Yes.' that conveys little actionable meaning.

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 no parameters, no output schema and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the essentials: it is a guidance-only tool, its output is procedural instructions, and the real action happens through the browser tools. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly, though a note on what the guide requires (e.g., knowing which asset) would round it out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description does not need to compensate for any 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 states a specific verb and resource (delete an asset in Brandfolder) and then clarifies the actual function: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the deletion. The opening sentence reads like a real delete action, which creates momentary ambiguity with the tool name, but the clarification 'opens nothing by itself' resolves it and separates this tool from the cotlet_browser_* siblings.

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 gives a workflow direction — get the steps here, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Brandfolder Cloud Browser — which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling guidance tools like cotlet_app_guide, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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