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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the crucial non-obvious context that despite the 'remove' name nothing is changed server-side and the return value is a UI walkthrough of screens, buttons, and fields. It also explains the absence of an API path ('CoachingPortal publishes no public API'), justifying the browser-tool follow-up. It does not state whether the invitation link is invalidated or what happens if no invitation 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 the non-action guarantee, then the follow-up mechanism, then the API rationale. The lead-in 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the final API sentence are slightly padded but each carries some justification for the browser fallback.

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 rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: it explains that the response is a UI procedure and that execution must continue through the browser tools. Remaining gaps are edge cases — no invitation present, reversibility of a revoked invitation — rather than anything blocking correct invocation.

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 the schema baseline applies and there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate. The description appropriately spends its words on behavior rather than parameter explanation.

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 the specific resource (a client invitation) and makes clear the tool itself returns a step-by-step procedure rather than performing the removal: 'Returns how to do it in CoachingPortal step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That corrects the potentially misleading 'remove' verb in the name. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like coachingportal_invite_client or coachingportal_delete_client.

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 procedural guidance on the downstream path — do the actual removal with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's CoachingPortal Cloud Browser — which is useful routing. But it never states the trigger condition (e.g., a pending, unaccepted invitation) nor when-not to use it, and it does not compare against related invitation or client-management siblings.

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