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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: 'opens nothing by itself' and 'returns how to do it ... step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. This resolves the counterintuitive aspect of a 'create' tool that mutates nothing, and adds the prerequisite that a separate Cloud Browser tool set is required to actually execute, plus the note that no public API exists.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key caveat that nothing is opened. The phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the trailing API note are slightly promotional/awkwardly worded ('publishes no public API') but still carry information about supported platforms and integration constraints.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: step-by-step guidance covering screens, buttons, and fields. It also covers the follow-up mechanism via browser tools. A little more on the shape of the returned guidance (e.g., whether it is a plan, a checklist, or a single script) would close the remaining gap.

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 meaning to convey; the baseline applies. The description correctly does not invent parameters, and instead explains what the call produces (screens, buttons, fields), which is the useful analogue of parameter context here.

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 ('Create program template in the user's own CoachingPortal account') and, crucially, clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the creation. That distinction separates it from the browser-driving tool family it names. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as coachingportal_edit_program_template or coachingportal_duplicate_program.

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 usage path is implied but not spelled out: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It never states when NOT to use it (e.g., editing an existing template, duplicating one, or when an API path exists), and the sibling alternatives for template lifecycle operations go unmentioned.

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