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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which would look odd for a 'delete' tool; the description resolves this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions, plus the fact that no public CoachingPortal API exists. It adds real value beyond the annotations, though it does not characterize the shape or granularity of the returned guide beyond 'screens, buttons, fields'.

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 core 'this returns instructions, it does not execute' message is front-loaded, but the sentence is long and chain-linked, and the trailing clause 'CoachingPortal's official API: CoachingPortal publishes no public API' is redundant and clumsily phrased.

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, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tool family completes the action. Nothing essential is missing, though a hint about what the returned steps look like structurally 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 schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (delete program template) and immediately clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step guidance rather than performing the deletion. It implies the create/edit siblings by contrast but never names them, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

States the operating context (from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent, in the user's own account) and explicitly routes follow-up work to the cotlet_browser_* tools. Missing an explicit 'do not use this if you want the deletion executed directly' exclusion, but the flow is clear enough to act on.

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