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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', preventing an agent from assuming a mutation occurred. It adds genuinely non-obvious context – what it returns (steps with screens, buttons, fields) and that CoachingPortal has no public API, so browser automation is the only execution route – though it says nothing about prerequisites such as being logged in.

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 scope, then the return shape, then the execution path. The phrasing 'Returns how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step... and opens nothing by itself' is a slightly awkward run-on but carries two distinct facts without padding.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools to use next. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and invoke it correctly appears to be 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 no parameter meaning to establish; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description also correctly implies no inputs are needed, since it only returns instructions.

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 ('Edit program template') scoped to 'the user's own CoachingPortal account', and clarifies it returns instructions rather than performing the edit. Sibling edit tools (edit_intake_form, edit_meal_plan) are not named, so differentiation rests on the program-template scope in the name and first sentence.

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 clearly tells the agent the operational context ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and the follow-on path: use the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser to actually perform the edit. No explicit exclusions or comparison to sibling edit tools are given, keeping it short of a 5.

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