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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description meaningfully reinforces this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and that no public API exists for CoachingPortal. This explains why a browser handoff is required, which is real context beyond the annotation flags. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned steps, but the additional disclosure is substantive.

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 content is dense and front-loaded, but the opening clause ('Delete client in the user's own CoachingPortal account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') is an awkward run-on that briefly implies direct deletion and forces the reader to the second clause for correction. The trailing note about the official API is useful but tacked on with a slightly garbled phrasing ('CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API').

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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (steps with screens, buttons, fields) and how to act on it (cotlet_browser_* tools). The only omission is any indication of what to do if the returned steps cannot be applied, but nothing essential for correctly invoking this tool is missing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the fact that no inputs are needed. The description implicitly confirms this by describing an instruction-returning call with no arguments. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (delete client) and then clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the deletion. That clarification is essential because the tool name implies a mutation, but the leading sentence reads ambiguously before the correction arrives. It is distinguishable from sibling delete tools (meal plan, program template, recipe book) by the client/account scope and by the browser-handoff clause.

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 states the workflow explicitly: get the steps here, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. That tells the agent both the purpose of this call and the follow-on tool family. It does not name when to prefer a native CoachingPortal delete path or any precondition (client selection, permissions), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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