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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is the key behavioral fact for an agent tempted to assume the status changed. It also describes the return shape (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), valuable since there is no output schema. The closing sentence about Discogs's REST API v2 and the absence of an official MCP server adds no behavior about this tool and dilutes the signal.

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 middle sentence is the operative one and is tight and front-loaded with the no-side-effect fact. The final sentence about Discogs's official REST API, version 2, and a check date of 17 Oct 2026 is irrelevant to selecting or invoking the tool and consumes roughly a third of the text. The leading clause 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is also 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 zero-parameter guidance tool the description covers what comes back and that nothing executes, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not explain the implicit precondition that the relevant order must already be open or identifiable in the browser session, which matters because the tool takes no order identifier. That leaves a real gap in an otherwise short definition.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. It says nothing about how the tool knows which order to act on, but since the schema takes no arguments, that ambiguity is structural rather than a description gap.

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 name reads like a mutation, but the description corrects this precisely: the tool 'Returns how to do it in Discogs step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That makes the actual output (procedural guidance, not an update) unambiguous. The opening sentence still leads with 'Update order status in the user's own Discogs account', which momentarily suggests the tool performs the write, so the clarification arrives one sentence late.

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 follow-up path explicitly: use the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Discogs Cloud Browser to actually perform the update. That is a clear use-then-delegate pattern an agent can act on. It does not name cotlet_app_guide as an alternative source of Discogs guidance, nor state when this tool is unnecessary (e.g. if the agent already knows the Discogs UI flow).

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