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

Annotations only tell us this is a non-destructive, non-open-world write; the description adds what happens beyond that: grants are granted for all apps at once, dedicated tools appear only after the user signs in via Cloud Browser, the call is free, and it requires the user's Cotlet API key or sign-in. That is substantive behavioral and prerequisite context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Content is dense and front-loaded with the core action and its all-at-once scope. Sentences are colon-chained and pack multiple ideas each (cost, auth, sign-in, verification), so it reads more like a compressed spec than clean prose, but almost nothing is filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (API key/sign-in), cost, side effects (grant-all), and the failure boundary (access does not guarantee a task works). It does not describe what the call returns, such as per-app grant status, which is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a meaningful detail beyond the schema: slugs must be "as listed at https://cotlet.dev/api/v1/apps," which tells the agent where valid values come from and prevents guessing. It says nothing about the optional use_case parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Requests access to apps for the user's workspace") and anchors it to a console equivalent ("as Request access in the console"), plus the crucial scope detail that "every app is granted at once." It also implicitly separates itself from cotlet_apps (listing) and cotlet_app_guide (working in an app), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it: "Not needed to work in an app: the user's AI works in any web app in their Web browser with cotlet_app_guide." It further warns that granted access does not imply a task will work and directs the agent to verify in the browser, which is a concrete alternative path.

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